Phoenix X Maximus

June 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I'm Tarl N.. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Bill Belichick, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that a youtube video does not qualify as a reliable source. See WP:RS. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

hi Tarl N. Thanks for telling me YouTube is not a reliable source. However if the article is going to include NE Coach and Chad Masters you might as well put in Griffin Murphy who has been the Patriots Head Coach in the past 2 Madden games. It makes no sense to me not include Griffin Murphy unto that list. I have to find a reliable source to put Murphy unto that list when there are no other sources for the other names. I tried find a reliable source for Murphy and I could not. Nobody talks about the Patriots Coach in Madden because it is not Bill. The only source that I saw that proved Griffin Murphy was the New England coach in Madden was YouTube. I have erased those names due to their not being any reliable source for either of them. I don't get how that video was unreliable or the site it was on is unreliable when it clearly showed Griffin Murphy as the New England Head Coach and they are plenty of videos out there that show him as the Patriots Head Coach. RavenLord64 (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)    

Your change is reasonable; the sports articles are major problems as far as referencing goes. I can't fix everything, but I can prevent addition of new material which will attract BOTs - there is one out there that searches for additions of youtube videos as references, and reverts the edits. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source, we report what secondary sources say. We explicitly prohibit original research (usually abbreviated OR), where you observe something and write it up in Wikipedia. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 15:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me, I should be clearer on some things that will make more sense to you after you read WP:RS and WP:OR.

• I can't just take anyone's word for the name being used in the game. We've seen cases of people adding their own names into Wikipedia articles for self-promotion.
• We can't accept youtube videos as reliable sources because they aren't permanent (youtube periodically cleans them up), and because they can be manipulated - it's not unheard of (so to speak) for someone to change the audio of a video to say what they want.
• The Bill Belichick article comes under specifically more-restrictive standards than most articles in Wikipedia. Read WP:BLP.
• I can't just get a copy of Madden, because among other things, I don't own whatever hardware it has to run on. I don't even know what hardware it runs on. Playstation, I'm guessing?
• Besides all the above, we can't accept audio transliterations, because different people hear things differently. Remember the controversy about a month ago about Laurel/Yanni? Same audio clip, people reasonably heard it differently. I heard it differently based on what background noise was present. So you might mis-guess a name and then end up in an edit war with someone who guessed differently.
• In general, we want to see a article written by someone under an editorial board as the basis for any authoritative statements cited in Wikipedia.

Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand now. The Madden games are available on all generations of Xbox and PlayStation. Yes I remember the Yanni/Laurel thing and the black and blue or white and gold dress. I have read all the articles you have provided me.

Thanks, RavenLord64 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your highly-appropriate recent edit to Cleveland Browns was unfortunately accompanied by an incivil summary. Please maintain a more civil level of discourse when editing pages. Snide comments and personal remarks about fellow editors have no place on Wikipedia. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that Frank. It won't happen again. RavenLord64 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moves

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please don't move high-profile pages without discussion. There are many reason why Deaths in 2018 is where it is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Then mine telling me. Are you guys going to incorporate the rest of the months in the year. Because "Deaths in 2018" seems to indicate EVERY death in 2018 yet the page shows only deaths in November. There are other pages that show deaths in the months of 2018. If you are going to keep the name add every month to not confuse people. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, Deaths in 2018 includes all deaths in the year. The current month is in list form, and all other months are reached from the table of contents or the template at the bottom of the page. WWGB (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Be patient

Howdy. Biden doesn't become US president until January 20, 2021 at Noon EST. PLEASE be patient & undo your edit, at List of vice presidents of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I could be patient but I know a ton of pages on Wikipedia that acknowledges the election results. Wikipedia is suppose to be non-biased completely neutral. Yet, this site is going to be he last to officially acknowledge the election results. I wasn't a fan of waiting until Janauary 20th. To me it would be more fair and neutral to acknowlege the next president either after the electoral college vote in Decemeber or after Congress official certifies it in January. To only have a select few pages be locked until inaugaration is dumb in my opinion and assumes that the election results still aren't official. Plus, someone else already removed my edit.Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's denying the election results at that article. Note that we have Harris listed as VP-elect, just like we have Biden listed as Pres-elect at List of presidents of the United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, those are 2 of the articles that I am talking about GoodDay. I just don't see why we should achknowledge the results in those articles but not on Trump's or the Vice President page. It just seems silly to me. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Go with the flow, there's just 2 days left. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, I'm Bagumba. Your recent edit to the page Jason Kidd appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mansa Mousa & pop culture section

Hi, Phoenix X Maximus. I don't know whether you're familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines on pop culture sections in articles. The criteria for inclusion are discussed in the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_63#popular-culture-RfC. It's not just a matter of verifiability but of significance to the subject of the article.

Wikipedia:Trivial mentions; another essay

WP:Trivia

Thanks for reading this. If you still feel inclusion of the rap-battle is sound, please take it to the article talk page. I won't be reverting you again, but someone is likely to. Haploidavey (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just read your latest edit summary at that article; what you write there is a much better argument than is the source itself, but it really needs a description and comment by a second or third party source. Yes, I've come across those rap battles before, and some are excellent. In Wikipedia, they always seem to get deleted. But I never revert a good-faith edit more than twice in 24 hours. Haploidavey (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is I need another source? That mentions Mansa Musa in that battle? That's what I got from your links anyway.Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, pretty much, but it would have to be more than a "mere mention" (see above). Secondary sources can be used on their own, if the comments, authorship, editing and production are by someone with expertise in the subject; or at least has a reputation for reliability. As far as I know (or remember), Youtube is not generally considered a reliable publisher. Your secondary source would ideally be a written, verifiable one, by an acknowledged expert on Mansa Mousa (in history or popular culture) who has also commented on the significance of the battle, not just given a blow-by-blow account of what the video shows. It's a tricky one, and I'm no expert but I reckon it's worth discussing, though I'm not sure where. Probably at the Mansa Musa talk page, or the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you give me half an hour or so, I'll see what I can find. Haploidavey (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources and refs

The biggest problems for video are the primary source copyright issues, and the unreliable publishing platform, which also carries advertisements. See Wikipedia:Video links. See also WP:RS

For published secondary opinions, I can find nothing out there, other than the comments on Youtube, reddit, twitter and fan-sites. None of those can be used as secondary sources. I didn't realise, either, that Mousa vs Bezos has only just been released on Youtube (or anywhere else?); typically, the interval between release of the video and serious critical analysis/response would be a few more weeks. Until then, you'd probably best revert your addition, and perhaps leave a note on the article talk-page, where it'll be seen by more editors than have ever visited either of our respective talk-pages (though still not many).Haploidavey (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

March 2022

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Your recent edit to the page Nick Castellanos appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Placer County place name discussion

Hi, just a heads-up that your recent renaming of "Squaw Valley, Placer County, California" to "Olympic Valley, Placer County, California" was undone by an administrator pending this discussion. You're welcome to participate in the discussion. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)