Talk:1998–99 NBA season

message: I have slightly re-worded the introduction, hopefully it is OK.  I have kept the 5th feb date, per http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_3_223/ai_53630899 and described the agreement reached as a "Collective Bargaining Agreement was reaches between the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association", per http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#6, which also mentions the lockout itself.  I have removed "Some teams did not even play each other at all and many played each other only once." and "Before the season commenced there were 2 exhibition games; one home & one on the road." since I havn't found any sources for those claims - I have no objection to such claims if they are sourced.  Also, I've included some excessive cuteness on this talk page, because, well, everyone likes kittens, don't they? -- AJR | Talk 02:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick note: my mention of pov in this edit summary was due to tiredness,  would be fine on the version I reverted away from.  (Although we may as well just omit those two sentences until they are sourced, IMO.) -- AJR | Talk 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction 

message: We need to find a resolution to the dispute about this article, so that it can be unprotected.  I have already said, and will say again, that I know very little about what happened during the 98-99 NBA season (I came across a revert war in Recent Changes and tried to calm things down.)  The issue at hand is that an anonymous editor (then 64.107.220.179, I assume the various other IP addresses that have edited this talk page are the same person) was adding content to the introduction that Dknights411 saw as being unverified.  Nased on the research I did at the time (see above), I wrote what is currently the introduction.   The content from 64.107's version (and I mean in general terms, not specific wording) that I did not include is these two sentences:
#"Some teams did not even play each other at all and many played each other only once."
#"Before the season commenced there were 2 exhibition games; one home & one on the road."
I did not include these assertions since I did not find any external sources to support them.  If reliable sources for these claims can be provided, then IMO there would be no dispute here (although the second one is rather unclear - who played those exhibition games?)  To the anonymous editor: could you please provide some sources for your claims, rather than editors acting in good faith of vandalism. -- AJR | Talk 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For that second sentence, I think it's supposed to be "each team played two exhibition games".  However, I can't find information on LAST year's pre-season, much less those from this season.  I peronally think that if it's too hard and too strenuous to verify the info, then it is better to leave it out of the article.  But that's just my opinion. Dknights411 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving the problem 

message: It only shows your ignorance, and finally here are some links which proove my point AND NO, THEY ARE NOT ONLY ABOUT MAVERICKS, like you claimed first time when I said February 5th was the start of the season not only for the lakers...
http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/mavs/mavs-stats/98-99/mavs-misc98-99.html 
http://www.nbpa.com/history.php
:The NBPA link is great, but the first one is still a bit iffy for me.  Is all that listed on ESPN or some other media outlet?  One questions however, is it REALLY 100% imperative to list the exact dates on this article? I don't think so.  Moreover, does it make you feel better calling me ignorant and a vandal despite my good-natured attempts to keep this article up to wikipedia standards?  Does it?  You don't have to insult people in order to get attention on here.  If you have concerns and questions, take it up on the talk pages, NOT on the article itself.  And one last note, keep in mind that I created this article in this first place.  Would I really vandalize my own article? Dknights411 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: You are hopeless! Since you can not read and extract details, do you want me to do that for you, also, you are ignorant, since everything I wrote prooved to be correct, everything I wrote you took down in the first place...
:Well actually, I DID say the NBPA article was all right if you read my last comment correctly.  It was the first link I had a problem with.  And is it really necessary to point out that I'm ignorant (even though you can't really tell for sure over the internet)?  Listen, I'm trying to be reasonable here, but you're not giving me a chance.  How do you expect your voice to be heard if you spend all your time insulting people for no apparant reason (like with what you're trying to do with Chopin's birthday)? Dknights411 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: You may be benevolent Dknights, but so many try to be good but in their ignorance they do not see how wrong they are, I can go on arguing with you forever, the bottom line is, you are wrong, dont expect me to seat here all day and tell you whats right or wrong, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, ALL THE THINGS I TOLD YOU ABOUT 1998 1999 SEASON YOU REVERTED, EVENTUALLY YOU APPROVED, NOW THE EXHIBITION YOU WILL NOT, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SAVE LITTLE FACE THAT U HAVE LEFT DUDE...
:This isn't about pride.  This is about getting the facts straight.  And needless to say, the facts that you included are pretty sketchy at best for an encyclopedia article.  I'm not really concerned about how much "face" I have on Wikipedia.  I just want to get the facts straight. Dknights411 04:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Again, if you follow the history of the changes, every single thing me and my friend included, you erased, now you do not even have an excuse. The only thing is missing is exhibition, mentioned above, do not try to change self evident truth, because only morons like yourself will support it, of course if you explain them, they will not understand, but still support you.
:The only thing missing is the exhibition?  Ok. Tell me exatly WHY is the preseason so important to this article?  Pre-season information is pretty much absent on all the other NBA seasons articles, as well as articles like this for the NHL, MLB, and the NFL.  No awards are handed out in the preseason, and most of the good teams play scrub players that won't even make it on the final roster.  So is the preseason THAT important to this article?  If there is no preseason information on the other articles, then why should there be any on this one?  I'm not trying to put you down or anything, all I'm saying is that the preseason is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Dknights411 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to a reply

message: Listen, grow up, why is it important, because I remember when they made that new agreement, they said they will only play 40 games and no exhibitions, we always have 8 before season starts, right and 2 is something to remember in this case. You can always say something is not notable, to you that is... But of course, you have no end to arguments and many people on wikipedia are going against logic and self-evident-given truth, only people "smart" as them will follow those guidelines, but they all forget this is a free site... and many say... hey if i put somebody's bio, they will sue me... bs... no they will not, if it's public domain and they always contact you first to take it down before they do anything unusual...
As I said, we are not perfect, but that does not mean, we are not allowed to make small mistakes when posting here, that should not mean we should get blocked or the page should be blocked... it only shows wiki pure ignorance, nothing else...
:I'm still not convinced that the pre-season NEEDS to be on here.  For example on the NBA Live video games, there is no pre-season.  It takes you directly into the start of the regular season.  So I'm still convinced that any pre-season information is NOT relevant to Wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia.  Just one mention of the NBA page about how a season works is enough.  Also, you making small mistakes is NOT the reason why you're constantly being blocked.  An important part of that Wikipedia guideline is ettiquette, especially No Personal Attacks and failure to adhere to this is grounds for blocking.  If you have a beef about Wikipedia or Wikipedians, then discus it in a civil manner.  Wikipedia is a GROUP effort, and Wikipedia can only work if we all work TOGETHER.  That means that no one's own version of a page is THE correct version, not mine, and not yours.  We all work together in order to create this encyclopedia.  That's what Wikipedia is all about.  Dknights411 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-season

message: After over two weeks without any discussion, I think it's worth unprotecting this article.  I'll keep watching it. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I removed the following: "The San Antonio Spurs set a new NBA Finals single-game attendance record when 39,554 fans attended Game 2. Game 1 was attended by 39,514 spectators."
I don't know how many people AT&T Center holds but there's no way that a sold-out AT&T Center would hold anywhere near 40,000 people for basketball. For comparison: Key Arena held 17072 for NBA basketball, Staples holds just under 19,000.
-- lowellv (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically speaking, the Spurs played in the Alamodome in 1999 and so the figure is correct. But it's moot anyway, my research says the single-game Finals record was set in 1988. BryanG (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Occurrences

message: Why is the name of this article not 1999 NBA season, since the entirety of the season took place in 1999? Crd721 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  why include 1998?