User talk:Lizard the Wizard

Leave a message, and I'll ping you when I reply.

Sports dynasties

Stop trying to remove Egypt's achievement winning the African cup of Nations three times between 2006 & 2010 and using a source cite as a lame excuse. It is a fact, you don't put a source to check if the Sun rises from the East, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroa12004 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Miroa12004: That's a very poor argument. Wikipedia policy on verifiability states you must cite sources for anything that's challenged or likely to be challenged. I challenged your claim, now you must provide a source. Lizard (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can challenge the entire fucking section because every point in there is not cited, not single citation in the section for all the National teams. You're just fucking ignorant. All what you need to do is look at the African Cup of Nations winners to see that Egypt won the Premier soccer competition in Africa, 3 times in a four year period which was never achieved.

Richie Incognito and Yannick Ngakoue

I think that while these are allegations, and given the small scope of this controversy as of 10:48 PST 1/7/2018, I can support your update that removes this from the controversies section and adds to the 2017 section.

But in similar fashion to the other "controversies"...should an investigation lead to more detailed information, follow up actions or controversies, or a wider scope, this issue may ultimately warrant its own sub heading. This is consistent with the rest of the article vis a vis the summary/detail approach on the Jonathan Martin issue and the allegations of dirty play. Considering its relevance to Incognitos pattern of behavior, an impartial reader would view this latest incident as pertinent from a "controversies" pov.

A wait and see approach is warranted. So I'll wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmobisson (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, Lizard. I'm just posting to let you know that Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 5. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it had more to do with the Super Bowl being on at the time this will hit the Main Page. A few previous NFL lists that have run on the Monday after the Super Bowl have been popular with the readers, and I figured this would be as good a date as any to run this article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I've nominated Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award by the way. Lizard (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a writer at Sports Illustrated hoping to get in touch with you for a story on the UCF football team. Could you find me on Twitter at @stephapstein? (I'm new to this so not sure I want to post my email address on what appears to be an open page, but happy to DM it to you so we can proceed.) Thank you! Stephaniesi (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local and regional coverage

Kenneth Walker III is admittedly a marginal case, but the arguments being made there have far broader implications. Do you really want to push the notion that regional and local newspaper coverage doesn't have relevance to a WP:GNG analysis? I know your focus has been on high-level, PFHOF articles of late, and a rule precluding the use of local and regional coverage would not impact such articles. But bear in mind that a ton of effort has been invested by a lot of dedicated volunteers into developing coverage of notable topics at levels below the PFHOF. If a rule were adopted precluding local and regional coverage for GNG purposes, the result would be to devastate this impressive and significant body of work. As an example, most pre-ESPN LSU football coaches/ADs would have difficulty surviving an AfD if Wikipedia were to adopt such a rule. E.g., Charles E. Coates, Allen Jeardeau, John P. Gregg, W. S. Boreland, Dan A. Killian, Edgar Wingard, Joe Pritchard, John W. Mayhew, James Dwyer, E. T. MacDonnell, Irving Pray, Wayne Sutton, Branch Bocock, Russ Cohen, Mike Archer, and Curley Hallman, "Skipper" Heard, Jim Corbett, Harry Rabenhorst, and Carl Maddox. Probably true of the vast majority (if not all) of LSU season articles from the period before the arrival of Biff Jones. The same risk probably also applies to a significant chunk of the 426 LSU football players with Wikipedia biographies. Cbl62 (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are more ways of determining notability than just contemporary news sources. Those early players and coaches who are notable will have been written about in books and had obituaries in major papers, giving them WP:LASTING significance. Lizard (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING applies by its plain language to "events", not people. By "major papers", I assume you refer only to the four you previously identified (NYT, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times). Would you further exclude an obituary of a U. Chicago player/coach in the Chicago Tribune (or a Georgetown athlete/coach in WaPo) as "local" coverage? Under this standard, none of the LSU coaches/seasons referenced above would survive. As for books, only the top of the pyramid legends have books written about them. Would a brief mention of a coach in a book about the LSU football program history suffice? Or does the book need to devote a certain quantum of space (chapter, full page, paragraph?) to the person? Cbl62 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'd depend on the context and how many books they're mentioned in. Point is that contemporary sources aren't the only way to determine notability. Lizard (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award

Hi Lizard. A dispute has apparently popped up on this page. I know that you're unbiased and have solid experience with similar lists, so would you mind giving your opinion if you get a chance? Giants2008 (Talk) 13:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I get the feeling I've done more damage than good. Lizard (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. You gave an honest opinion and that was helpful towards reaching consensus, which was supposed to be the point of the discussion. What wasn't helpful was saying I've been "out of line here for a very long time", and you weren't the one who did that. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Well he's just been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. And I just spend a solid 15 minutes on a good rebuttal too, darn. Lizard (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. Good thing I ignored my aversion to ANI drama and brought it up there. There was just something about that user that told me they weren't really new to Wikipedia, and it turned out that way. Thanks for all your help in finding a resolution, and I'm sorry that you wasted chunks of your time on debating a sock. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'll just consider it a fun little exercise in restraint. God knows I had a few choice words for that fine fellow if I felt like throwing my clean behavioral slate out the window. Lizard (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I wonder how "out of line" I am for this and this. Flagrant violation of policy. I should be ashamed. Lizard (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was the comment that pushed me in the direction of ANI when I really thought about it. I suppose, according to that logic, that all of us who become primary contributors to an article are exhibiting ownership and shouldn't be trusted. In light of the sock making that image, I admit to getting a laugh out of this. Oh well. It's over now and a sockmaster was found out, so it wasn't a total waste. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some insight on Edmond Miles

Hey, I was wondering if you could provide me some insight. I stumbled across this page, Edmond Miles, due to some vandalism and made some improvements. However, when I first stumbed on the page his position was listed as "left bench." Upon looking further back in the revisions I noticed it was originally linebaker and changed it back. However, an editor recently just changed it to "right bench" which was a red link so I reverted [1]. I looked on google and cannot find anything related to football and right/left bench but you edit football articles more than I do so maybe you can provide some insight. Is this just trolling or am I missing something? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just vandalism. Thanks. (not Lizard) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]