Itemspitch2

Welcome

Hello, Itemspitch2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Mosmof (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Big Baby episode

The reason, which I guess I've only tried to explain in the edit summaries, is that while the incident itself is cited, "He is well known for..." makes a claim that is unverified, and probably unverifiable. You're making a claim that the crying incident is, (a) a primary reason for Glen Davis's fame, and (b) that it is well known (but by whom?), neither of which is supported by the source. And the followup sentence about the coverage is a case of WP:SYNTH - you're extrapolating a claim based on a story that ran on Ball Don't Lie, a blog that focuses on the lighter, less covered, side of the NBA, rather than Yahoo Sports proper. As it is, the incident appears to be a funny but inconsequential episode that won't get much traction over the long term. --Mosmof (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick on you, but the "while it may seem trivial" makes it even more encyclopedic - you're inserting your original research and POV into the article. --Mosmof (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages and sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Anyway, some of my complaint was about the notability of the incident, but it was mostly about the tone and the style. The problem with "well known for" is that it's a really nebulous claim that doesn't really have any defined metric. And using a YouTube viewcount would be considered original research. But even if it wasn't based on original research, while you can certainly argue, convincingly even, that Davis is "well known" for the incident, but you can't ever prove it. This can be a hard distinction to make, but it's one of those things you'll figure out once you spend more time editing on Wikipedia, I think.

Also, it does very much matter what part of Yahoo Sports it comes from. This isn't to say that BDL isn't a valid or reliable source - just that, because the site tends to deal with the lighter side and the minutiae of basketball, it's lower on Wikipedia's notability totem pole. Again, I think this becomes easier to figure out the more editing you do.

Anyway, thanks for engaging with me, and I'm glad I haven't discouraged you from editing here. But I think the key is to remember to not to insert your own conclusions or analysis into the edits - everything should basically be a paraphrase of something that's already published in a reliable source. Cheers. --Mosmof (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)