Jump to content

User talk:Bossanoven

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bossanoven (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 30 October 2010 (→Requesting moves). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Yo, I just wanted to let you know that I've kind of been the main editor for the statistical NBA pages (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, 3s, and FTs) for over a year now...so I had to undo some of your recent edits. I always update immediately after games so just to give you a heads up if you could let me have those :-) thanks Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Coulraphobic123[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Smashvilletalk 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to George Clinton (musician). Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dennis Rodman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Talk:George Clinton (musician). Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to your being blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Rodman

Please read WP:BLP. Unsourced material may be removed from a BLP on sight. Repeatedly restoring it is edit-warring. If you restore it again without providing sources, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the content in question at Dennis Rodman. Please read WP:BLP. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The reverted additions aren't so much a BLP problem as they a violation of our other core content policies: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Even if Rodman had died 50 years ago, that paragraph would be problematic. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph needs some work, but since it has been documented in books, it is verifiable and is not original research. The only problem is subjectivity. With some fine tuning it could be non-problematic.Hoops gza (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes

Seriously, if you want to add jokes to articles, like you did at Patrick Ewing, head over to Uncyclopedia. Don't make extra work for other editors here. It's a pain to check through all of your edits. Zagalejo^^^ 04:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slavko Vraneš

Hello. Vraneš may have once measured 2.26 however he is at an age whereby one may still just about grow, and there are more sources to state that he is now 2,29 and these are measured sources. This coincides with what he declares and what people say he is. Earlier sources did have him at 2,26. Anyhow, please be aware that when making reverts, you may not remove sources in the process. Such behaviour is unconstructive and can lead to a block from editing. If there is more doubt concerning his height then it is fine to give two heights along with sources to explain dicrepancy. Note that all 2.10+ basketball players have disputed heights over one or two inches for various reasons. Furthermore, Vraneš has not played in the NBA or had anything to do with it since 2003, then he was just 20. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are talking at last. There is a way around it. You (or we) will need to add a footnote to confirm that this was his height at the time, since that is the subject of the article. I didn't realise your interest was NBA only, it seems odd but fair considering. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? A minute or so after your last revert. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed. You've done a good job and I'm glad we've reached a solution. They'll be no more need for reverting now. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Steele

Do you ever intend to add a source for your addition to Larry Steele? Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern is that there's nothing at all online that confirms it. If it was a commonly used nickname, I'd expect some evidence for it. Maybe it was only used a handful of times on tv or the radio. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Requesting moves

Hi I noticed you moved List of National Basketball Association players with most points in a game. I don't mean to jump on you but you should attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page before moving it. Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed the change too, as is the case with all of the other NBA statistical leaders pages. Sweeping changes are being made to established pages without a hint of consensus. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure a list of every player's career highs is necessary either, which is another thing that Hoops is adding. I applaud a lot of his work; filling out all of those templates is no joke, but there should be at least some attempt made to discuss some things occasionally. Quadzilla99 (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just thought that the title changes would make more sense for searches by people. A common search term would probably be "most assists in a game" as opposed to "22 or more assists in a game". Since I titled most of those pages, I thought that it wouldn't be a big deal to change them.Hoops gza (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bossanoven&oldid=393785550"