User talk:Hganesan

Where is the fact that nash averaged 0.8 steals- UNDER THE LEAGUE AVERAGE for Guards???? IN PLAYER PROFILE

I don't see it, where is it?

The magic Johnson is repeated twice in the nash article

Someone delete it it is called repetition.

I WAS TOTALLY CIVIL IN THOSE POSTS AFTER I WAS UNBLOCKED

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. Hganesan 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

You call this being civil? [1]

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. Hganesan 21:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

THE SCARY THING HERE IS THE ADMINS ALLOW IT

THAT IS THE SCARY THING RIGHT HERE. THEY LET THIS BULL**** PASS. Hganesan 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

LOOK AT THE FING BIAS ON KOBE TELL ME ABOUT THE THREE PICS

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. Hganesan 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

- You need to find a picture that is not copyrighted.

HELP ME ON KOBE

PUT BACK THE 22 OUT OF 125 NOT VOTING FOR HIM UNDER MVP CANDIDACY IT IS TOTALLY SUBSTANTIATED READ THE DAMN ARTICLE. Hganesan 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

- 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??? Hganesan 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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.Hganesan 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. Hganesan 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Wikipedia 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. Hganesan 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

I think you should try submitting to Encyclopedia Dramatica instead of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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

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. Hganesan 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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.

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. Hganesan 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't put 0.8 STEALS IN THE MVP SECTION. Read my recent posts there. IT WAS IN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. AGAIN YOU LIE. Hganesan 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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. Hganesan 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

You mean this isn't you? [2]

That's right fag I never put 0.8 steals there. That is less than 1, not 0.8. And check the date on that retard. Hganesan 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

lol, it's the same thing. And, no matter how you wanna word it, it doesn't belong there.

Getting Better

In looking at your most recent edit to Kobe Bryant, 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.

Cheers! Mwelch 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?

On my user page you wrote:

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.

That's great but instead of writing on the User page could you use the Discussion page in future. (You have been told already) Best of luck. --Downwards 03:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant MVP

Wikipedia 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. ----Duhon

Kobe Bryant issues again

OK, now we're going to need to ask you to respect the Wikipedia policy on being civil 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 neutral point of view 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. Mwelch 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?

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. Mwelch 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

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 Wikipedia'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.

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. ;-)

Thanks! Mwelch 20:50, 11 May 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.

Also, don't let the "Show preview" button go unnoticed. It's right next to "Save page".

ta. --Downwards 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

More Kobe Bryant issues...

First, please sign your name on talk pages. You can do this by adding ~~~~. 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. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pleas check out Wikipedia:verifiability. If it is not verifiable, it does not belong. Simple as that. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR and Civility

You are formally being warned for violating the three revert rule. Don't revert the changes again. Please also be civil 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.

3RR violation diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=prev&oldid=52619850

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=prev&oldid=52712911

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=52736539&oldid=52736192

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=52739953&oldid=52739216

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=52764247&ol

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. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty funny how when I post facts now you are getting upset. I took out surprising btw. Hganesan 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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

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.

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. Hganesan 04:05, 12 May 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

Post about the Kobe rape and the credibility of Wikipedia goes down instantly. THAT IS OFF COURT. What I posted is ON COURT.

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. Hganesan 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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

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! Hganesan 04:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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 Hganesan 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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

Hey i changed it Henry boy. Now it is factual. You see, I KEEP IT REAL.Hganesan 04:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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. Hganesan 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

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 said before the only player to not win a championship and average under 20 ppgs henry boy. Then crybabys like you changed it and started playing around with it; in the process I forgot about Russell. ONE TIME I MESSED UP and now you claim i don't follow the rules. One bad nash lover you are. Henry boy now you follow the rules and don't delete any facts. Now you see none of my changes have been deleted.Hganesan 21:18, 12 May 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:

"He did it to launch his career, but over a decade later, it has still gone nowhere. JT The Brick rules, Jim Rome drools."

This is blatant opinion and vandalism. Please stop.

-Hey I deleted it RIGHT AFTER I put it on. Do you have the balls to come out and identify yourself??? I think not. Hganesan 22:53, 13 May 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. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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. Hganesan 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Why do you keep mentioning Steve Nash? I don't follow at all. My comment referring to your poor form is your edit summaries. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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. Hganesan 04:47, 14 May 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:

"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 Wikipedia. Please man, you cannot use words like remarkable. Dawg please."

and so on.... --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Those are considered "poor form"???? I don't understand 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"Hganesan 05:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

1) Using all capitilization on the Internet is considered the equivelent of yelling.

2) Borderline personal attack.

3) Trolling.

I am not sure exactly who Henry is, but apparently you somehow know him (even if it is only through Wikipedia). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:11, 14 May 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. Hganesan 05:17, 14 May 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 --203.214.88.244 06:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What ranting? I am contributing a lot more than you right now. Hganesan 07:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

This is exactly an example of the civility problems I am talking about. Wikipedia isn't about who contributes the most. Furthermore, just because someone contributes a lot, it doesn't mean they are allowed to act incivil. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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. Hganesan 07:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

I was referring to your comment "I am contributing a lot more than you right now." --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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. Hganesan 07:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Please try to understand the distinction between a civil request and a borderline attack (assumedly you mean a personal attack). The latter would typically not contain the word "please". The edit summary 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: Help with editing --203.214.88.244 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"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. Hganesan 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

It is only a matter of time until you are reported to an admin if you do not quit the incivility. 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 doing it again . (What will it take for you to get the message?) --203.214.88.244 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve Nash page

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.

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.

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.

For a Wikipedia 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.

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 Wikipedia 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.

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.

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. Mwelch 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 Wikipedia 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. Hganesan 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

License tagging for Image:23141787.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:23141787.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't upload copyright images. Also, fair use doesn't cover replacing free images with copyrighted images. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1)The image was not deleted. 2)I did not place the image on Ball hog. Please quit making assumptions. 3) Legally, Wikipedia 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, Kobe Bryant or Image:23141787.jpg 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. Hganesan 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 Wikipedia:Images and other relevant image pages. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I got the tag and all, now lets be fair now. Hganesan 02:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Would you care to explain this 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 WP:3RR to an extreme degree. There is no excuse for this as you were previously warned. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 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. Hganesan 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

As I stated previously, that image, under no circumstances can be used on Wikipedia. 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. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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. Mwelch 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 Wikipedia" type of thing. But as I mentioned above, the thinking on that among the Foundation has changed recently. The Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia." 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. Mwelch 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 Wikipedia 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. Mwelch 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keeping your cool

Please stay cool when things get heated when there are editing disputes with other users. Be more considerate with your edit summaries, and tone down your language. --Madchester 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. Hganesan 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. Sunray 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. Hganesan 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. William M. Connolley 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 William M. Connolley 19:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not this is my own discussion page I can write what I want. Hganesan 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 William M. Connolley 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. Hganesan 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

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. --Madchester 20:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. 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. --Madchester 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

so when does this block end? Hganesan 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Because of this edit, I have restarted your 48 hour block that Madchester had imposed. Any further personal attacks will result in longer blocks, or potentionally a permenent block. Please, just quit it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Right i understand the 48 hr block. Madchester is Canadian volleyballer and that is why he blocked me for 48 hrs. All i can say is you can't stop me. Just know that. Fraud never wins PS2, it never wins. Hganesan 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

{{unblock| Unblock me because I was not supposed to be in the first place. Fraud never wins. It never does. British boy blocks me and Canadian extends my block. HAHAHA.}}

That further racist personal attack has resulted in your block being further extended to 1 week. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

you still can't stop me. Hganesan 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

I think you'll find we can: experience indicates that in a fight between editors and admins, the admins hold all the cards. All of them. We can block you indefinitely, and we can block your IP adress, and we can lock the articles, and we can prevent you editing your talk page, and we can moderate you off the mailing list. That's what we would od if we were taking this anythign like as personally as you make out. The really stupid thing is that you are probably right about the edits, but your ludicrous flying off the handle about a pretty much automatic action per WP:3RR, a policy which makes very clear the fact that it applies even if you are right and is designed to stop the massive disruption of the project which edit wars cause, has resulted in your attracting the unwelcome attention of multiple admins and pretty much preventing any chance of you actually achieving what you want to achieve. And you know what? On WikiEN-L you were told precisely that. All you have to do is engage in civil debate on the Talk page. If there is a POV edit, there's a good chance that there will be plenty of people happy to agree it should not be there. Instead you go into edit-war mode and fling invective around, with the result that nobody takes you in the least bit seriously and you end up blocked for an ever-extending period. Just how smart is that, exactly? Just zis Guy you know? 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to kick a man while he's down, but..

Accusations of vandalism

I am compelled to not only defend my actions of yesterday concerning this edit, but to enlighten you on what Wikipedia constitutes as vandalism (in relation to its articles), as you appear to not know how best to identify it (see here and here).

The definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism is as follows: any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

Whether you agreed with my changes or not, surely you had an inkling I was not deliberately trying to REDUCE THE QUALITY, as you ultimately implied.

Remember: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly .. do not submit it."

Steve Nash Featured Article candidacy

I am confident the Steve Nash article is (or was) at a stage now where it could be considered as a Featured Article. Your heavy input into the "Strengths and weaknesses" section consists of a tone I believe jeopardises its chances. These are the following issues I see with a large chunk of what you were responsible for writing ("Strengths and weaknesses"):-

• Too much POV language, i.e. "brilliant", "Nash's defense is extremely suspect", "this point is validated by" etc.
• Far too much attention afforded to Steve Nash's "critics" — they need to be identified. Who exactly are these critics consistently peppered throughout the piece? And why have you not mentioned critics who I'm almost certain in turn refute the other critics? Are they reputable? Are any of them reputable? If he was voted MVP, then surely these critics would be part of the minority.
• Too many connect-the-dot arguments put forth, i.e. "Ben Gordon scored a career high 39 points against Nash, Mike Bibby scored 40 (or whatever) against him, Damon Stoudamire scored a season-high 36 (or whatever) against him, therefore his critics' points are valid."

I've never seen stuff written like that in a real encyclopedia, and I do read them often.

When you return, try to tone down the boorish behaviour by maintaining a level head and make a concerted effort to be far less over-zealous in "protecting" your work. (it's not perfect, either.)

--Downwards 08:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just reading that post makes me angry because you don't know ANYTHING about basketball if you don't think STEVE NASH is a HORRIBLE, I repeat HORRIBLE DEFENDER. You have never seen steve nash play, he is a horrible defender. Just because 125 media members ended up voting him as the MVP does not mean he is a GREAT DEFENDER. THE FACT THAT NOT ONE NBA COACH THINKS HE SHOULD BE IN THE TOP TWO ALL NBA DEFENSIVE TEAMS SPEAKS VOLUMES. This is the MVP we're talking about voted by the deadbeat, MM(mental media). You would expect atleast 1 COACH to vote him on. but not even 1.

Critics?? You are clueless lemme tell you that right now. You don't need CRITICS to PROVE HE IS A HORRIBLE DEFENDER. If the media voted for him, IT IS HARD TO FIND A MEDIA PIECE CRITICIZNG IT. Stats, lack of awards and PRAISE (NOBODY says he is a good defender) and THE GAME S I PUT UP ARE ENOUGH PROOF.

I'm sick of this nash love. You want me to find an article let me know and I will. DON'T HIDE THE INFO THOUGH. AMAZING YOU HID IT, LIKE A FRAUD. THEREFORE YOU ARE REDUCING THE QUALITY, BY NOT PUTTING UP THE FACTS.

Who are these critics??? Everyone! Nobody thinks nash is a good defender. GO DO YOUR RESEARCH. BETTER YET, GO WATCH BASKETBALL GAMES ON TV OR GO WATCH THEM LIVE like I DO.

WHY DID YOU HIDE THE INFO?? THAT IS MY QUESTION WHY DID YOU HIDE IT???

BTW DOWNWARDS you are trying to get me blocked longer aren't you?? It won't work and even if it did, lemme get something in your head: FRAUD NEVER WINS. I don't care AT ALL what the definitions of vandalism are, THE BOTTOM LINE IS: YOU HID IT. You HID THE INFO. WHY? Because I put on 13 NASH GAMES in which he was BAD BAD BAD. And that stuff about the brilliant and extremeley suspect???? FIRST OF ALL, I wasn't the original one to write those two terms, AND THEY WERE there BEFORE, I REPEAT BEFORE I ADDED THE 13 GAMES!!! So it is clear you deleted (AKA HID) the info once you saw the beautiful posts I wrote and you GOT SCARED BAD. WHY'D YOU HIDE IT??? YOU COULD HAVE SAID LIKE THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. That is vandalism, you vandalized big time. The STUFF I POST makes the quality of the article better. you know why??? BECAUSE ENCYCLOPEDIAS DON'T HIDE FACTS!! Where are the 0.8 STEALS AVERAGE-UNDER THE LEAGUE AVERAGE FOR GUARDS??? WHERE IS THAT I ASK??? YOU TELL ME WHERE IT IS???? You're totally flawed just like most editors on here. Do I post pictures of Nash getting drunk, etc on his page?? Do i post this??? [3] or this [4] Why is there a mugshot of Kobe??? FRAUD NEVER WINS. That is why you will NEVER WIN. It might not be now, it might be WHEN THIS FOOL NASH is remembered for ROBBING KOBE'S MVP. And I am going to make sure that wikipedia is not in love with nash. I will make sure you guys don't bring down WIKIPEDIA'S CREDIBILITY. Hganesan 08:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

- no offense, but we are trying to make Wikipedia credible. And, what everyone has said has held true. You are trying to make Steve Nash look bad and Kobe look good. As far as the MVP thing is concerned, Wikipedia will NEVER portray Steve Nash as the one who "Robbed Kobe's MVP". By posting relevant facts (keyword: relevant), it will always be noted that Kobe finished 4th in the voting and was no where near winning the MVP award. Furthermore, the people who you attributed "media bias" to, even if they had voted in the same manner as the other voters including Kobe on their ballots, Kobe still wouldn't have had enough to surpass Nash. So much for that argument...

128.6.78.50

And btw all this was started by the 128.6 IP USER. He TOTALLY WENT OVERBOARD and deleted the nash scoring 0 points and the Nash giving up 30 to RIDNOUR. These had been on for SEVERAL DAYS. AND I DID NOT EVEN MAKE UP THE 0 POINTS. Check his history he is a big problem here because all he does is delete everything I write about nash and kobe and post stupid criticism about bryant. And guess what??? The difference between him and I- I DON'T DELETE THE STUFF HE WRITES BUT HE DELETES WHAT I WRITE!! Hganesan 09:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

I went overboard? I asked you to discuss things in detail rather than get into an edit war. You refuse to do that. You post something in the discussion thread and automatically proclaim yourself right. You then put your edit back before anyone even responds. That's right, you don't delete the stuff I write. I haven't written anything in like a week. I've just been removing POV stuff by you.

Image copyright problem with Image:Phf-aagj026.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phf-aagj026.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)