{{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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule The admin did not even follow the three revert rule], please be fair here. I see One PRO NASH supporter kept reverting again and again on the [[Steve Nash]] 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 [[LeBron James]] 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)[reply]
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. Wikipedia'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 babelfish 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many of them have blocked me this month? Hganesan 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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
Just remember JzG, unfair treatment is never a good thing. It never is. Hganesan 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Hganesan 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
So you say, but the facts are against you. Unblock request denied. Just zis Guy you know? 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hganesan 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association, Wikipedia: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). Joe 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.Hganesan 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan[reply]
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? --Downwards 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unforunately, Downards, this is an outright lie. I put it on your DISCUSSION page, in user talk. Please check where I posted it again. Hganesan 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan[reply]
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. :) --Downwards 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hganesan 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan[reply]
FWIW, Essjay found that Hganesan and Buscrafe are unrelated; they edit, indeed, from different continents. Joe 23:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. 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. Mwelch 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hganesan 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. Mwelch 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Simishag 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guess who was on the wrong side again though there, like Always? You, because of your lack of knowledge. Hganesan 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. Hganesan 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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?
Hganesan 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. Simishag 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hganesan 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. Hganesan 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
More sockpuppet idenitification on people's userpages[edit]
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. 128.6.78.50 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote you were a sockpuppet. That's all. Don't lie.
Hganesan 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
And you're wrong. Thanks 128.6.78.50 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hganesan 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. Hganesan 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
Simishag come clean with your tactics and lies[edit]
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.
Hganesan 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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)? 128.6.78.50 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.Hganesan 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
Check out your block log. [1] 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. Simishag 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hganesan 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy edit warring, incivility, etc. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. Will (message me!) 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added another week on for that not-very-nice message. Will (message me!) 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hganesan 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. Hganesan 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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 [2] 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.
Hganesan 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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, [3] 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.Hganesan 06:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Bold text[reply]
This is what happen when you use foreign sources and have clueless editors here- LeBron James in Dunk competition and DUHON[edit]
Look at user Duhon, he unknowingly believes that LeBron is no longer eligible to participate. He brings up a bogus canadian source from 2004. [4]
That is not the rule here, look at Ricky Davis, he was in the '04 competition iteslf
[5], 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.
Hganesan 08:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
Arguably the "problem" is that you fail to recognise that Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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. Hganesan 09:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
You are the one being blocked because you are allowing your frustration to override Wikipedia'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)[reply]
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. Hganesan 09:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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 [tm] ever to get blocked? This happens all the time - partly because people's judgment of what is The Truth [tm] 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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 [citation needed] 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. Hganesan 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
Slam Dunk Contest eligibility (Prokj's misconception)[edit]
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. Prokj 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hganesan 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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 [6] 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. Hganesan 07:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. Simishag 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One small addition: despite your attacks on Canadian sources, you seem to have no problem [7] using them [8] when it suits your purposes. Simishag 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hganesan 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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 [9], 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!Hganesan 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan[reply]
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. --Madchester 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles, as you did to Israel. Doing so violates Wikipedia'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. -- Avi 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
