User talk:12.134.204.214

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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.

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 temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Madchester 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

12.134.204.214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason 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.

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)