User talk:FrostCzar

Welcome!

Hello, FrostCzar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Tom Brady. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Tarl N. (discuss) 03:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Tom Brady

It looks like you are on the verge of getting past the auto-confirmed hump for editing. Try editing this talk page (or mine), and then attempt to edit the Tom Brady page (being careful to make sure your edit is good). The autoconfirmed limit is in place simply to prevent people from creating single-purpose accounts for vandalism, and has very lenient standards for deciding that the account has been around long enough and used enough to qualify. Regards. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady

If you allow me, three things you should get your head around here on Wikipedia:

As per WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
To claim something as certain as that (like an artist being the best that ever was, or an athlete being the best of his kind) will require way more than a single citation (that wasn't even included in the article; see WP:CITE). You have to show that this is not the opinion of a few sports analyst, but that is commonly thought amon experts in said subject. I suggest you use the talk page first, to see if your fellow editors have some thought on the matter.
And finally, pay attention to WP:NPA. Don't accuse others of impartiality, especially when not following the rules. You added an unsourced material in the article. It shouldn't surprise you that it was quickly reverted. Coltsfan (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that Tom Brady is the best football player of all time. I have no doubt that Jerry Rice and so and so journalist thinks the same way. But that's not how wikipedia works. If you wanna say that a singer, athlete, movie star, whatever, is the best that ever was, you will need a lot more sources, and above all, a consensus. Hope it's clear now for you. Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MY Response:

The sentence states the SOME CONSIDER him the greatest player...just like most consider him the greatest QB ever. The sentence makes zero claims to prove or verify such statements as that has been thoroughly discussed as impossible in the past.... using the journalists, peers, coaches standard and only those with unbiased and qualified resumes to consider him to be as much are the sources I provided in support of the first edit that another indiviual provided.

Your reasoning seems flawed. As i told you before, you should use the article's talk page, engage in discussion, try to dialogue with your fellow users. Expose your point of view, show your sources. To make a claim as strong as that, you will need a consensus among the users here in Wikipedia. If you can establish that your claim is true, great. If not, well, per WP:V, the content must be removed, especially when dealing with biographies of living people. You can't simple claim that one athleat is the best or "considered" the best without showing multiple sources that confirm that. So, i say again, use the talk page. It's easy. But don't engage in WP:EW, especially when you are trying to add controversial material without presenting sources. That don't sound good.

But if you refuse, well, then measures will have to be take to protect the article. Making big claims require big sources. Anyone can claim someone is the best on something. Even with "some consider", that does not suffice. A lot of people consider a lot stuff. You have to be careful with that. We have a zero police here with WP:OR. Ok? See ya. Coltsfan (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking your time to discuss this. I typically try to stay away from making edits of that type for most of the reasons you state as well as the polarized views in many cases lead to bad outcomes for everyone. I did not even make the original edit, I only restored it because although there are not a tremendous number of sources yet, many of the sources that do make the claim, are significant sources (unless you count twitter since the gov loves to use that source so much, then there are endless ones). Either way, it's an argument and discussion I have no desire to imbed myself in (I've already put way more effort into it that I thought I ever would) as I personally do not care if people think he is the greatest player ever, I'm a numbers kind of guy and that's where the fun is for me and his numbers are a lot of fun to dive into. Numbers are easy and verifiable so I try to stick to only those. Either way, no hard feelings, I'm not in any way the most skilled or competent person in WIKI ways or etiquette and procedures, so using the TALK is not something I’m very familiar with, but I guess I will have to learn to navigate it at some point. Thanks again, FrostCzar

Well, if you want to familiarize yourself with the rules, here is the most important of them: WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:CON, and WP:CS. And using the talk pages is really easy, i recommend that you read WP:TPG. But avoid WP:EW the next time. Read WP:Status quo too. If you are reverted, talk to the person that revert you. See his reasoning. See if what he/she is saying is based on any rule. Engaging in edit warring is a last resort (or no resort at all). Thanks! Cheers. Coltsfan (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Don't forget to sign your messages! It's really easy. See here: WP:SIG. Coltsfan (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]