User talk:Tsmizz219

July 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anderson Varejão, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''Also, there is no community consensus that receiving a ring is sufficient for being labeled an "NBA champion". Typically, they need to still be on the roster at season's end. Feel free to discuss at WT:NBA'' —Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Matt Carpenter (baseball)
Good evening - I just removed one of your edits from the above page and I accidentally pressed Enter before I finished typing my edit summary, so I wanted to let you know why I made the change. The current consensus of WikiProject Baseball is to only include the WS in the infobox if the player was on the team's postseason roster. This is true even if the team decides to give the player a WS ring. I appreciate your work and just wanted to give you a heads-up about an odd little quirk of WP Baseball pages. Thanks again! EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Anderson Varejão, you may be blocked from editing. —Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Zach Randolph. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 Wikipedia. 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. —Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jamal Crawford. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)