User talk:Bossanoven

Welcome!

Hello, Bossanoven, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Zagalejo^^^ 09:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Len Bias - Please avoid weasel words

Please take some time to read this guideline: avoid weasel words. I am confident that after reading, it will make sense to you why you shouldn't have a sentence like the one you keep on inserting on Len Bias. The references you gave are good, but do not support your statement. That is why you should consider rephrasing to something else that is verifiable. This is a basic principle of wikipedia that is strongly tied to wp:npov.

Thank You. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One article does not support "generally considered". You would have to cite, I don't know... 40-50 articles to support that statement. That's why you should reword it. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the history showed that you undid, but I guess that's misleading. "Experts is kind of a strong word", but if you want to revert me go ahead. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late, but I just want to say I'm glad we were able to resolve this, and happy editing --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

NBA All-Defensive Team

I think a limit need to placed on the Most selections table because obviously it cannot include everyone.—Chris!_c/t 22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true, although theoretically it could include every player since only about 100 players have ever made an NBA All-Defensive team. But I think the minimum should be 5 All-D First Teams, which is where it's currently set.Hoops gza (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The group of players with 4 All-D First Teams is a truly stellar class of defenders. I'm considering including them, it's only eight more players.Hoops gza (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits

As a friendly note, can you consolidate your edits a bit when you edit a page? I understand that making small minor edits is helpful and is absolutely fine because it is not against any policy. But that pattern of editing can distort the page history and make edit conflict easier to occur.—Chris!_c/t 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

For sortable table, every items should be linked because you never know which item appears first after sorting.—Chris!_c/t 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you know why 17 game streaks is chosen to be the minimum? It seems arbitrary to me. Should we expand the table to include 15 or 16 game streaks?—Chris!_c/t 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can see the logic behind that. But the NBA article here also includes 16 game streaks. Should we at least expand the table to cover 16 game streaks. To me, 16 game streaks seem pretty rare.—Chris!_c/t 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your concern although imo I don't think we should stop including 16 game streaks just because of that. I understand that the NBA article is far from comprehensive, but with more researches I think I can make this list as comprehensive as possible. Anyway, I would not try to include 16 game streaks right now because of this concern.—Chris!_c/t 01:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dwight Howard

I left a resp on my own talk page and I've started the discussion in the talk page, but I wanted to let you know that you're already past WP:3RR. --Mosmof (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

This was just plain disruptive. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point. I already declined your speedy as the article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. I have directed you at least twice already, but WP:AFD is the appropriate venue for deletion discussions. --Smashville^talk 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jordan

Please see WP:SEEALSO – "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example)." In addition, two editors have now reverted your addition to the see also section. The usual course of action is to discuss the edit on the talk page instead of blindly reverting. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The links have removed again after a couple more editors agreed that the links were not necessary. Please do not reinstate them until you gain a consensus to do so. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, please do not continue to reinstate contested edits. Please discuss on the talk page first. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would strongly advise you to discuss any edits you want to make to Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant on their respective talk pages first. I think you know that your edits are controversial, but too often, you go forward anyway. You do some good work elsewhere, so I don't want to see you blocked, but you've been on thin ice for a while. Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting in a similarly contentious claim in Dennis Rodman after two editors warned you not to insert such statements in articles without discussion (or an edit summary, at that) is bordering on disruptive. Please be more careful. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ray Allen

Hiya. Let's discuss your recent reversion of my formatting edits at Ray Allen. Also, I notice that you do not, as a rule, leave an edit summary of your edits; I'd encourage you to do so, as it helps other editors follow your work...PRRfan (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)