User talk:Itemspitch2

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)