Talk:NBACentel

Article edits

Hi @TSwanyIRL: Was in the middle of editing and was going to ping you after, and thank you for the effort because there is still a lot of constructive edits you made, but a good portion of it was cruft. I see you decided to make an edit summary including profanity, but I'll ask you to remain civil. The LeBron/Diddy story is not cruft because it was sourced by Front Office Sports. The reporter in question, Robinson, is directly cited and mentioned in that source. The reliable sourcing here, and not relying on Centel's own tweets or a tabloid like Daily Express (see WP:DAILYEXPRESS or WP:RSP) is what makes it not cruft... Soulbust (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Excessive reversion of edits

Please be aware that the method in which you are actively undoing everything I did in pieces is both unnecessary and performed in an insensitive manner. Continuing to spam-edit this way is making it practically impossible for me (or anyone) to contribute on their own. It's rude at best and predatory at worst. You can argue cruft all you like, but multiple other contributors have viewed my draft (which existed prior to you creating this page) and did not find enough of a problem to make it known, instead one only citing that this page existed first, and therefore a draft was not necessary. I also find your own revisions/added content does not necessarily abide by the standards that you yourself keep holding my edits to, which is fairly hypocritical IMO. There exist many unbothered pages on Wikipedia that conform to these standards far less and yet ruffle no feathers. Removing Twitter citations for an article about a Twitter account is crass, sorry. Citing a tabloid in most cases is bad practice but I find no problem in its use to drive home the point that tabloids fail to do research before publishing headlines. I apologize for coming across rude myself. I simply think there is more to be had with this article.TSwanyIRL (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay.

1. Not unnecessary, and you would need to explain how it is insensitive.

2. If you look at what I'm actually doing in the edits, you can see why they are made separately and not spam edits. The editing style was shorter edits where it is easier to see what I'm changing in each edit. This means they can be done faster.

3. You can still contribute, my edits are not making it impossible for you to edit.

4. My editing is not rude nor predatory, and I would ask you to assume good faith here, as it's one of the core tenants of Wikipedia.

5. Your draft existed eight minutes before I made the page. Given what you had there and what I had, I wanna say we were working on it pretty simultaneously. Was acutally thinking of making it hours before but was busy offline with work and also was just tired. Either way, props on getting it in eight minutes earlier, I guess. Either way, I wasn't aware of your draft.

6. My revisions do absolutely abide by the standards I'm keeping your edits to, which is just the standard set by Wikipedia guidelines and policies such as WP:RS. If you think I'm being hypocritical you would maybe wanna expand on why you think so without just saying that?

7. "There exist many unbothered pages" is pretty much just an "other stuff exists" argument. But those other "many unbothered pages" don't matter to me because I a) don't know which ones you're talking about because b) you didn't mention any examples, but regardless even if you did mention examples and even if they did matter to me, I would likely just want to fix any issues with those articles, as well. Or at least I would recognize there would be an issue to fix.

8. Twitter citations can be usable, especially when the actual content the tweet would be sourcing is information about the subject itself (see WP:RSSELF; i.e. if Centel tweeted about its own account, that would likely be usable)... but third-party reliable sourcing is still preferred.

Soulbust (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the crass response from earlier. Hit up the page at a time where most edits were the removal of content and it rubbed me the wrong way. Am a lot more content with where the page is now; everything is a lot more organized. :] TSwanyIRL (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for remaining cool and apologizing for earlier, but no worries. I think we were able to find some good compromises on what can/can't be included as per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, especially the WP:RS one. And yes, it is definitely more organized now :-) Soulbust (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 01:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after a NBA Twitter parody page posted a fake report of Milwaukee Bucks coach Doc Rivers promising to take coaching "seriously", their performance improved during the 2024-25 season?

• Source: https://www.sportingnews.com/in/nba/milwaukee-bucks/news/viral-fake-x-post-fix-milwaukee-bucks-season-doc-rivers/984e70b02f2fe1c7062f50b4

• • ALT1: ... that basketball player Kevin Durant browses the comments of a NBA Twitter parody page "to truly see how many dummies come online thinking that they have high IQ"? Source: https://www.complex.com/sports/a/treyalston/kevin-durant-nba-parody-doesnt-like
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/George Seeman

Created by Soulbust (talk) and TSwanyIRL (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC).

• New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Hook facts are both present in the article and check out to the cited sources. No textual issues; Earwig catches the quotes in the article and nothing else. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making the nom. I was thinking of making it as well, just hadn't been able to get around to it. I also think the Merriam-Webster bit could make for a good alt hook. Soulbust (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

NBACental / NBACentral

Hi, i was wondering why NBACental would have a wikipedia article but not NBACentral, i would love an explanation. Thank you! Komishu (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Because NBACentral would likely not have the adequate reliable sourcing or significant coverage to warrant its own article. Its a pretty run-of-the-mill news aggregator that gets its news from media outlets or reporters, as opposed to Centel creating its own parody content. Likely the only reliable sourcing out there on NBACentral is only passing mentions of it as the thing being parodied by Centel. Maybe that changes in the future, but for now this is the only source I could find that provides non-Centel-related coverage. Soulbust (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)