User talk:12.134.204.214

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edit to Steve Nash

Your recent edit to Steve Nash was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 05:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello 12.134.204.214, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Zpb52 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been no vandalism, please check my recent posts. I have only edited them for more accuracy. Please do not falsely accuse me of anything.


[edit] May 20

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's NPOV rules and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Madchester 05:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand but here I have really not been adding personal analysis. I am making the articles here more fair and neutral, and more accurate as well.

Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so breaches Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. --Madchester 05:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Right I first want you to explain some of the "personal analysis" i am adding and explain why that is. please explain or discuss.

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against personal POV insertion and use of weasel words. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. --Madchester 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

{unblock|Madchester is blocking me due to his personal biases. I did not violate any pov policies in any of my recent posts. If anything, I made less the blatant povs in specific articles. Please check what I have posted. Please notice what I have written and what I have contributed is all to make the article more accurate AND neutral. Specifically, the ballhog article is very incorrect and extreme pov. Ball hogging is rarely a good thing, but it really can be the only effective strategy. Unfortunately, the people here seem to lack knowledge of basketball, not only evidenced by the blatant povs on ball hog but on other articles like the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks, in which the series is referred to as Semifinals, when it is really conference semifinals. I really should not be blocked here.}}

In the NBA Most Valuable Player Award article, you made various blatant attempts to discredit Steve Nash's accomplishments by stating that "it would likely only be better to have the media vote for the MVP during the playoffs." Only one source makes that suggestion; and a mildly verifiable sports commentary site at that. User:Simishag caught you inserting such POV statements, yet you continued to make reversions despite the evidenly biased suggestion. You also made a rash of similar revisions to ballhog, when the sources I just provided are in-line with common perception.

You're dumb because you have no idea what you're talking about. The poll is not owerwhelmingly in favor of Iverson, and the Kobe article only indicates that people have considered him a ballhog. I NEVER deleted the statement that he's been considered a ballhog. Stop lying Madchester. You're blatant POV here and I want my block removed. The pictures are blatant POV, the articles indicate they are not commmon perception themselves. Delete the pictures.

I find it interesting that after Kobe's exit from the playoff by Nash's Suns, there has been a rash of new users (namely User:Hganesan and a slew of other anonymous IPs) that have been trying to boost public opinion of Kobe, while discrediting Nash. Leave such opinions for sports messagboards or radio shows. --Madchester 06:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Infact this entire site is totally biased AGAINST kobe and FOR nash. I did not delete the blurb about kobe and iverson being a ballhog did I? And your articles are just polls voted on by fans btw. You did not even read the article before you put in in ballhog. It is not widely accepted that they are ballhogs, only their critics say so, and they have a lot more fans than critics, believe me. Just that none of them EDIT on wikipedia. You don't know much about basketball at all.

Thank you for experimenting with the page LeBron James on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Zpb52 07:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly I cannot contact you but why in the world is it reverted? What pov did i add there????? Nothing! I made the article more accurate and better. You are from the state of Alabama and you don't know that rookie season is generally accepted as the term for first season??? Enough man have you even seen LeBron James play? You are from the US and you make everyone from here look bad. Great job man, I would understand if you were not from the US but my post is clearly more accurate and what is generally accepted by everyone but a few crazy wikipedians. You should really change that back. With all the cleveland cavaliers earning home court through the first round, which is not in the article right now btw. Seriously just revert back to my post it is in no way vandalism. you are out of your mind.

Seriously some of you wikipedians are just plain insane here. I am not a sockpuppet of hganesan. You wikipedians have lost your mind LOL and look at zbpb reverting back to a worse post than before on LEBRON JAMES. horrible.

Btw looking at hganesan's posts it seems like a lot of his stuff has usually ended up on all the pages after the initial crying from certain wikipedians. Except of course for the crazy 13 games for nash. You should've never blocked him. Like a lot of the mvp candidacy for kobe bryant.

If you're not User:Hganesan, then the similarities are suprising
  1. Both users opened accounts and editing almost simulatenously (Special:Contributions/12.134.204.214, Hganesan user log)
  2. Both users have a blatant pro-Kobe, anti-Nash agenda (again see contributions)
  3. Both users share a similar writing style and vocabulary... "Keeping it REAL" anyone? (12.124.204.214 recent edit Hganesan recent edit)
Whether this is sockpuppetry or whether you are asking your buddies to further your personal opinions, I would suggest toning it down. This situation is a textbook example of accounts being blocked permanently, as I have seen from past experience. --Madchester 08:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I know who he is but I am not him, and no sockpuppet. But I still totally agree with most of his info, because it is clearly factual, everyone else on this site has pro-nash and anti-every other nba superstar Agendas, especially the admins. It shows, it really does. He or I never deleted any of your nash infos. But whenever he or I post, it is always taken out even when it is legitimate. Like these reverts right now are insane. The users on wikipedia just write sockpuppetry even when the info is actually bettering the article and making it more accurate (except some exceptions like the MVP article which was a POV on my part.). Can you argue against some of my RECENT posts in the last few hours and argue for their reverts?? Specifically lebron james, ballhog, and steve nash, explain what was wrong there. Notice i also fixed up the Spurs and Mavericks articles to conference semi-finals, not finals. It makes no sense, all my info posted here is good and totally fair without agendas and they have been deleted. It is mind-boggling.

Neither I nor hganesan had any anti-nash agenda. If we did, you would've seen us deleting all the good info about him, and we didn't. We did not delete his info about winning the mvp or the list that he joined (btw Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and the 5 others have nothing to do with nash winning the 2006 MVP award also if you say nash being the only one to not have a championship has nothing to do with it). We did not delete his strengths and praises. The whole article as I see it was even more horrible before hganesan came on to revamp it. It still has some more work to it right now to make it neutral and non-pov. We just added on the other factual, real takes about him that nobody else had the balls to add, mainly because of the prevalent pro-nash agenda that all the admins here are subscribed to.

Basically you've admitted that your made POV edits, which are in violation of Wikipedia policy. You can make 1000 good contributions, but if you make 5 other edits with a clear POV bias, then it's not acceptable. If you'd like to provide personal commentary, save it for a sports messageboard not Wikipedia. --Madchester 21:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I made 1 pov edit. That is not deserving of a block. Follow your own rules madchester. You do not. You've made pov edits and allowed them as an admin, to Duhon, Simishag, Henry, 203.214, onomatopeia and the other admins like PS2pcgamer. There are many more too. The Iverson image in ballhog is unverified too and you guys are allowing it there. When hganesan put a pic of kobe dunking over and owning nash, you guys cried and immediately deleted. All the reverts to my posts have been pov. Unblock me then, it has been over a day already.

[edit] Don't take everything so personally.

Please don't take everything so personally. Every edit is subject to changing by another user. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be all about your own agenda. Also, word to the wise, attacking Wikipedia and its policies is not going to help you get unblocked. --Zpb52 07:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Right I understand that but I want to know then why I was personally blocked, I still can't believe you reverted my LeBron post explain the pov in it. It makes me frustrated, as do the two pictures of Kobe and Iverson in an article entitled "ballhog" it is blatant pov and nobody is fixing it. The article madchester puts on for iverson is just a poll voted on by some fans.

[edit] 3RR Block

You made 6 reverts on the Steve Nash article in a span of 15 mins. {Special:Contributions/12.134.204.214)

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Madchester 00:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

{unblock|Madchester is blocking me due to his personal biases. Please check what I have posted. Please notice what I have recently written and what I have contributed is all to make the articles more accurate AND neutral. Madchester please post the specific instances in which I reverted. Also, nothing has been done with user Simishag, who has reverted several posts also. User simishag and others like Duhon and Downwards have not even been warned for their blatant pov posts and constant reversions. You can even check Downward's horrible post in LeBron James, as he edited mine to try to make me look bad but he ended up writing piss poor, INCORRECT and INACCURATE statements. He wants me to look bad when I am the one who is actually putting up the most accurate, 100% correct posts out here!!! Why isn't he being warned?? The people who revert my posts are just biased, they are the ones who need to be targeted, I am not doing anything wrong here. Please check my recent posts and explain why they are bad posts. Why can't I revert back to them if the posts are good and nobody has any valid criticism against them? Nobody could argue against my reasoning for what I put on. I defended everything I put on, yet Madchester is again using his personal biases to the extremes and I find it hard to believe the other hundreds of other admins on this site accept this behavior. Not only did he block me, he also blocked editing of Steve Nash just because I was editing it and brought up points nobody could argue against. He has gone extreme here. What is funny here is that ironically, my most recent changes to the article before my block have been accepted and nobody can argue against them. I ask that I be unblocked and Madchester be warned for his actions as an admin. They have been unacceptable at best.}

you should be banned alone for being Hganesan. You're supposed to be gone for a week. If you are going to claim to not be him, you shouldn't type the exact smae things he does. No one is post pov except you. In just one week, you've become notorius for it. Stop using your sockpuppets and take some time off.

signed RWJUH

Exact same things?? I do not type in CAPS nor do i use the same type of wording he does. You don't know anything about the situation don't get into this. Believe me, if you think my stuff I wrote or his stuff was pov and the stuff that other editors like simishag, duhon, or henry, or Ps2pcgamer, or Downwards, or madchester, so many others write is not, you don't know anything. Count on it.

Lets see...you only try to post the same things under Steve Nash, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and ballhog. Hganesan focused on those 4 articles obsessively. Kinda like you are doing now. You also magically started posting all of this after Wikipedia mods banned all the Berkely IPs Hganesan was using. You even post the same things such as keeping it real, and calling everyone else biased, saying we are all Nash lovers and Kobe haters...etc... Just because you don't type in caps doesn't mean you're not him. In fact, you're the only one who would even point that out because you've obviously made it a priority to not look like Hganesan. You're doing a very poor job.

signed RWJUH

I agree with what he said; everyone here hates kobe. That is why nobody is doing anything about the kobe pic under ballhog right now. That is also why people deleted everything he and I wrote under almost everything, even though there was no bias to it. Find 5 edits in the articles I have written in the last two days that is not good, post it here, and explain why it is not good. I will defend what I have posted.

Have you noticed also that Madchester is Canadian, and so is Steve Nash? Oh, Canada!

Just because he deletes your stuff doesn't mean he's biased. He's deleting your biased edits.

[edit] Credibility

Any credibility you might have had has been completely destroyed by your behavior. You continue to engage in revert wars and add the same content that has been found objectionable by multiple editors. You suggest that there's a conspiracy against you, that we're all ganging up on you. Really? What's more likely: that we've all decided to conspire against you? Or that you're not willing to listen to anyone but yourself?

Some editors (like me) have gone so far as to investigate everything you've contributed to make sure you aren't sneaking anything else in on poorly watched pages. Some of your contributions have been fine: grammar & spelling fixes, that kind of thing. That doesn't give you the right to force your changes on everything, everywhere. You don't earn karma by making good edits.

You are way past the point of getting the benefit of the doubt. Simishag 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)



you are engaging in the wars too. Infact, you are starting it. You are the one who started reverting everything back to its piss poor biased form. the ballhog article is still horrible btw, thanks to you simishag. Listen to anyone??? You're the one not listening to anyone. Did you check my post on the Nash discussion?? You did not. Did you read what I wrote on the ball hog discussion info or the edit summaries? You did not, instead you kept reverting back to your pathetic pov versions. Your grammar btw is horrible. Atleast I put up correct info. Look at Downwards for example in the LeBron james article. Right after I edited, he put on piss poor, incorrect info just to edit my stuff because he wants people to think it is bad when it is really the most accurate info out there compared to anyone else.


Downward's post is so super poor he should be blocked for that. That is so poor it is not even funny. It is embarassing to wikipedia.

"Oh no, I've been outed by a sockpuppet!"

No, I know what you're referring to. It was an honest, simple error. It's since been corrected, so hopefully, in time, wikipedia will recover. But yes, I probably should be blocked and you should take my place as NBA article guardian, because you keep it real. --Downwards 07:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please don't issue any more personal attacks towards editors of Wikipedia. Thanks. --Madchester 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't block me anymore for no reason. Reverting something back to make the article better is not reason to block. Check Simishag's reversions. That is what you call BAD reversions.

I am still waiting for my 6 posts which you claim were reverting. I know i reverted, I just want to see which ones they were.

[edit] Unblock request denied

I've reviewed the immediate causes of your block and I endorse the action. Please take the block period to reflect on the neutral point of view and our other polcies or, even better, just get away from the computer and think about other things. When your block is over you're welcome to return to edit in a collegial spirit. -Will Beback 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)