User talk:Kennster2015/Archives/2015/April

Answer
I'm in college right now, so I don't really have too much time to devote to editing Wikipedia pages. The news about Avery Johnson just happened to break on a weekend and I have a vested interest in the school that hired him (considering I attend it), so it was feasible for me to take some time to edit his article. I'm just not sure I'd be able to efficiently coordinate with you time-wise on editing pages. I hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebobbyroberts (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Shabazz Napier has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Shabazz Napier was changed by Kennster2015 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.966466 on 2015-04-08T02:29:04+00:00.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Shabazz Napier. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to the Eastern Conference (NBA) article
Hi there. The field you are editing on the Eastern Conference (NBA) article should only list the most recent playoff champion (the Eastern Conference team that advances to the Finals), not the regular season champion that earned the best record among the Eastern Conference teams. The NBA seems to only recognize, and thus award a trophy, to that team that wins the Eastern Conference Finals. There apprently is no similar trophy or recognition to the team that merely clinches the #1 seed in the Eastern Conference playoffs. And I do not know any team that regularly raises banners to their rafters recognizing that regular season achievement.

Furthermore, if you are instead repeatedly putting the Hawks' name there on grounds that they "clearly they will become conference champions" solely based on your assumption that they will somehow breeze through the playoffs just because they are the #1 seed (and thus blatantly disregarding both the sports adage of "that's why they play the games" and the possibility of a "Cinderella team" suddenly emerging without notice and upsetting everybody in their path), that will seen as original research and vandalism. Repeated violations of the policies of either No original research or Vandalism are grounds for this account to be blocked from editing. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a troll
I never said that you were a troll. I inadvertently left off the word post at the end of my edit summary. You may be human but Cluebot is not. What I deleted was a troll-like post to Cluebot's user talk page. See Internet troll. Deleting posts like this is per policy under WP:DNFTT.  Nyth 63  19:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)