User talk:GarnetAndBlack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, GarnetAndBlack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! NW (Talk) 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

2006 SEC Football Standings[edit]

G&B, I just took the time to confirm USC's 2006 football standings, as shown in the Steve Spurrier article. The Cocks were 5th, not 4th, in the SEC East. Please see page 136 of the 2009 SEC Football Media Guide for authoritative reference. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:65.41.168.112[edit]

I don't think it is necessary to antagonize the aforementioned IP. I understand why you'd be frustrated with them, but it was an obviously new editor editing in good faith. The IP in question's behavior is also understandable when reverted and templated. The whole situation would have been diffused if you had just moved the content to it's own section. Anyways, I get frustrated by new users on occasion too so no worries. Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to offer some advice about Wiki policy to a new editor, and it's frustrating when that advice is ignored and instead met with even more violation of other policies. Thanks for stepping in. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

non-biased related content[edit]

I am abit confused. It is obvious that you are a supporter of the University of South Carolina athletic program so I fail to see why allowing two traditional sports logos of the same size to be used side by side should cause a problem. Since the logos are of not in violation of non-free overuse (the ones in the "blood drive" section were removed), their size and placement should not be an issue. "Point of view" should also not be an issue if the point of view is rotated from the title of the article ("Clemson-Carolina / Carolina-Clemson") throughout the article. 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1975 (talkcontribs)

I'll assume that you are the same individual who has been making anonymous POV edits for the better part of two days with multiple IPs and reverting without discussion in the article in question, and decided to stop reverting and register only after being warned for 3RR violation/edit warring. You should be aware that having a username will not help you get around that policy. The situation with the logos is in keeping with Wikipedia policy on the use of non-free logos when free versions are available, you're not going to have much luck swimming against the tide on that issue. I also noticed in another one of your recent edits that you claim to have no affilation to Clemson University. If this is indeed the case, why are you so interested in making essentially meaningless edits that place that school's name/logo first in numerous places in this article? The title is Carolina-Clemson Rivalry, therefore it makes sense to maintain consistency throughout the article. Also, do not remove factual information from the Clemson Tigers football article, as you did in the case of details surrounding recruting violations and probation under the coaching tenure of Danny Ford. All these edits taken together make it difficult to believe that you are simply an unbiased editor, with no Clemson ties whatsoever. Honesty goes a long way when trying to build a reputation as an editor here. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why are you, a Gamecock fan, trying to maintain the Clemson Tigers football article? You have no cause or purpose to do so. Let people knowledgeable about Clemson maintain the article. Your username pertains to South Carolina and your past comments indicate that you are clearly not an unbiased editor.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Why are you, a new user obviously ignorant of Wikipedia policies, trying to dictate who can edit which articles? If I see mistakes, POV edits or unsourced content, I will remove these wherever I find them. Your behavior on your first day here indicates that you are clearly not an unbiased editor either, but as long as your editing follows Wikipedia policies, you'll find things go more smoothly for you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GarnetAndBlack for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

First, the allegation is absurd, and I welcome CheckUser to clear my name. Secondly, it's pretty difficult to respond to the allegation when the admin who filed the report subsequently blocks me for edit warring. Doesn't seem kosher to me. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I've closed it: The supposed alternate account was already shown to be a sock of a very different user, so the case resolved itself.
Amalthea 08:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Brawl article content dispute[edit]

GarnetAndBlack, please see my comment on the Clemson-USC Brawl discussion page, and let me know what you think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 baseball[edit]

Hey i saw where you made the 2010 SC baseball team page i was just wonderin if you had any intrest in making one for this year i keep up the 2011 Alabama Crimson Tide baseball team and would like to get some more sec 2011 team pages. Zwilson14 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to start one for USC's 2011 season. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Due to your recent attention to the article on USC's steroid scandal and its associated Talk page, you inspired me to write a Wikipedia article for Clemson University's steroid scandal of a few years prior. Hope you are as dedicated to improving this new article as you are the one about South Carolina. Cheers! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, so you basically spent the nice weekend inside at the computer working for me then! Kinda weird, but whatever "Urinates on Street Corners" for ya! Cheers! --PeeCocks (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, those couple of hours late last night really killed my weekend. But thanks for your concern! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

CHOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE CURSE LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OVERRATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy ANOTHER mediocre season at The USC. "Kneed" a running back? BWAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!!!!!!! --CobraGeek The Geek 02:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I love how Clemson fans think so highly of Carolina's football program after two straight ass whippings, that a road loss to a favored team ranked two spots higher in the BCS Top Ten qualifies as a "choke", and a 7-2 record is "mediocre". Thanks for the compliment, Tater. Makes me wonder what losing to an unranked team when you are undefeated and favored counts as? Guess we'd have to ask Dabo about that. LMFAO

Oh, and thanks for showing the world how low your redneck fanbase is by making light of a teenage kid's injury. You stay classy, Clemson. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No hard feelings[edit]

I wasn't sure if you wanted that whole thing kept or not on your talk page, but the user was blocked for a week. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you blocking a very disruptive and immature person from continuing his harassment. I actually do want his most recent comment to remain on my Talk page, because I want people to see what kind of petty, hateful individual we're dealing with here. Anyone who would take pleasure in the pain of a kid playing a college sport is a pretty pathetic man. The ironic thing is that Marcus Lattimore is a hundred times the man this idiot will ever be, and in a few years from now, he'll be making millions and proudly representing USC on Sundays. Congrats on the win this weekend, your Hogs were the better team and we made too many mistakes to beat you in your own house. Hopefully, we'll get you next year in Columbia! Good luck with LSU...I think you'll need it! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
A lot of my brothers from ATΩ were in town for that game (and though Fayetteville was close to home, didn't go tailgate and worked on papers) but watched most of the game from my dorm room. But it was a very good game and I know we will need everything we got against LSU. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just making sure...[edit]

Ah okay, didn't check to see if it was you that changed it- thought it was someone trying to sabotage the stats. Really? Only 3? I'll take your word for it, I think the other teams all-american numbers are skewed- Vandy with 30 and Kentucky with 10? Also, does that include Melvin Ingrams All American Honors? Smithgn (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I was surprised myself to find that Melvin was just USC's third consensus AA. George Rogers and Del Wilkes are the other two. Oh, and Vandy has 6 (still more than I'd expect) and Kentucky does in fact have 10. You can check any other schools you're interested in here[1]. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks! Smithgn (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I trimmed down the notable game section and will add the '59 and '63 games when I get a chance. Feel free to re-add or choose some other games for balance as you see fit. If you feel it needs to be trimmed even more, let me know.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I had to revert to the last stable version before several juvenile acts of vandalism by an anonymous IP user. Feel free to add the 1959 and 1963 games to this version, and I'll trim the section after that. Sound good? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
That works. I'll try to get to it today.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The page mentions that a chicken was strangled during the 1946 game and that Thurmond and Byrnes had to calm the scene down. I'm pretty sure that actually happened during the chaos of the 1961 game. My father attended that game and remembers the scene. I will do some research, but I think this is incorrectly attributed to the 1946 game.--LesPhilky (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ball's book[edit]

We're not getting into this racial BS again. Clemson's will did not call for a private school to prevent an "invasion from the negroes". William Watts Ball's book (from the 1930s, no less) is a notoriously racist and opinionated piece of trash that has no business being cited on any Wikipedia page. He made the statement, not Clemson. I'm aware of Tillman's racial issues, but that has nothing to do with this situation nor does Ball's BS have anything to do with the rivalry. Not only is it off topic, but it is not factually accurate. In order for a "fact" to remain on Wikipedia, the burden of proof rests on the person posting said fact, and that cannot be done in this case. If you have a problem with this (or cannot otherwise show how this made-up statement from Ball has anything to do with the rivalry page), then I will gladly pull in a third party AGAIN to set you straight.

I understand that Gamecock fans like to pretend Clemson University is the only school to harbor white racists from 1860-1968, but that is a ridiculous insinuation and I won't tolerate misrepresentations of facts based on one antiquated clown's opinion incorrectly attributed to Thomas G. Clemson.--LesPhilky (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement is not attributed by Ball to Clemson, it is attributed to Tillman. If you continue to attempt to sanitize this article with revisionist history based on nothing more than your personal bias and POV, you will be not succeed. This statement is cited and has been a part of this article since before you or I came along, so the burden of proof lies with you to provide a link demonstrating that the author of the book made the comment and was not quoting Tillman's views on Clemson's will. You did know that Thomas Clemson was a slave owner, I assume? Hard to believe that he would have had any significant difference in opinion from Pitchfork Ben. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is not attributed to Tillman. It reads "The agriculture college, as specified in Clemson's will, was to be privately controlled and thus would be able to prevent any 'possible invasion by the negroes'." That is a direct attribution to Clemson. Your belief of what Clemson would have believed is not fact. It's POV. How long the statement has been in the article is irrelevant if it is factually inaccurate. And even if your false claims were true, how is it relevant to the article at hand? Explain how it is relevant to the rivalry and we won't need to bring in a third party.--LesPhilky (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't read that way now. Prove Ball made the statement himself in his book and wasn't quoting Tillman, and it's out of there. Otherwise, it's just your word against a sourced quote that predates you by a long time. Feel free to bring in a third party if you feel that all you need to provide here is your word. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. A third party already pointed out that the article's language is filled with slant and irrelevancy. I will bring it the third party in and point out that despite third party instruction, you are continuing this tradition.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that you can't demonstrate that this statement isn't Ball quoting Tillman? If that's the case, I'll bring in a third-party to explain to you that you can't remove sourced material simply by claiming that it's false or because you don't like what it has to say about history. We'll see how that goes for you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrong... the burden of evidence lies with you, per Wikipedia policy:
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Note that the article states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Provide direct quotation that proves Tillman or Clemson made the statement and not Ball. Finally, I will bring in the third party to dispute relevancy.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Charlie...I didn't add this material. I'm preserving sourced content, you are the one claiming that whoever added it to the article initially is essentially a liar by disputing verifiability. Therefore, the burden is now on you to prove this to be the case. The original editor fulfilled his burden of evidence by sourcing the material with a book author, title and page number when it was originally added. The ball is now in your court to demonstrate that this editor misrepresented the material that was added. Still waiting on that to happen, and if it does I'll fully back your call to have the material removed. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread[edit]

I'd appreciate your input on the ANI thread you were previously linked. If we can come up with a better solution than the topic ban I've proposed then that will likely be a preferable route. Prodego talk 05:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, per Prodego. [[2]]--LesPhilky (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Touching base[edit]

Now that the 6-month ban is officially over, I was hoping we could touch base and work out some agreements for future editing. One suggestion I had was that neither of us revert or change any of the edits made by the other without first discussing it between us and/or others. I figured that would help avoid edit warring or arguments. How do you feel about that? Thanks, and take care.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as long as the edits in question are. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, in reference to HangingCurve's edits, I thought he had also unnecessarily removed good information and was about to revert as well, but now I see he just touched up some of the wording. I think it's probably okay.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, obviously one of us might think an edit is reasonable when the other does not, so I think a healthy discussion about it could clear up any misunderstanding.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Carolina–Clemson rivalry, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, check again. Image file is now updated with proper information demonstrating that it is in public domain due to being first used in 1975 (actually, the only part that would be copyrightable is the Gamecock which was first used in 1966) with no evidence of copyright protection (it was trademarked in 1983). There are numerous examples of college logos that fall into this category[3]. I am thus reverting. Please feel free to add this image to Wikipedia Commons. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina-Georgia rivalry[edit]

Just letting you know I posted a suggestion on the Georgia-South Carolina rivalry talk page, and would appreciate your thoughts as you're one of the more involved editors on the page. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina (USC)[edit]

I went ahead and changed it for you where it has USC in the correct places. I hope this will help you in you future editing on Wikipedia. MDSanker 05:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the deal with this debate? Can you point me to where it is being discussed? Moberho (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Please join the new discussion on the Carolina-Clemson rivalry talk page regarding South Carolina vs. Carolina so we can avoid future edit warring. Please join in.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of that, there probably either needs to be centralized discussion or discussion on the talk page for the Steve Spurrier article. You've hit the three revert limit on that article today. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
...Or, as you've done, open a sockpuppet investigation, since it looks like multiple accounts are working together. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Carolina-Clemson rivalry". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The case will be closed shortly unless the involved parties come to the page and begin a discussion.-- KeithbobTalk 01:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Opinion[edit]

Your opinion is requested: WT:CFB #Division Co-Champions. BenYes? 20:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoring non-free images I have removed[edit]

Please stop adding the logos that I have removed back. The image is copyrighted, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the WP:NFCC. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not in any way demonstrated copyright, and you are violating the WP:PUF rules for discussion. Per the tag: "Feel free to edit the file, but the page must not be blanked and this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed." Do not revert the page until an admin has closed that discussion. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
See the PUF, I've linked to the copyright filing. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No proof whatsoever that is the copyright filing in 1983 for a logo that was first used in 1975. Also, I don't think a person other than the one who created a work can file for copyright protection for that work. USC head football coach Paul Dietzel created the "Block C" logo in 1975. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:South Carolina Gamecocks Block C logo.svg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File talk:South Carolina Gamecocks Block C logo.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved the file over to Commons. The talk page just has a message (from you) about it from before it was changed from non-free to free licensing. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Why I reverted[edit]

I understand the rivalry has gotten a little hot within the last week, but let's step back for a moment. The Dabo Swinney page has been a source of constant vandalism (again, not by you), and part of that is the constant pushing of POV and emphasis on the rivalry, which is not the main focus of his page. Consider that there are many streaks Clemson has against South Carolina that could be documented, but it would be detrimental to those coaches' pages for Clemson and SC fans to get into a pissing contest over highlighting them. Major, significant wins and losses are highlighted, but the loss to SC is not a major, significant game. The records of the coaches and the teams are well-documented throughout the appropriate pages, and if we get into this sniping back and forth each time Swinney or Spurrier loses a game to their respective rival, it's just going to encourage edit wars from other parties on both sides. You and I know how to prevent this from happening. Let's do that.--LesPhilky (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to wax rhapsodic over 3-year overall records and include insignificant wins in Swinney's article (this year's Georgia game didn't really mean much given how the two teams finished the season, and is a Music City bowl victory over Kentucky really a "major, significant win"?), then surely you can admit that a record-setting game with Clemson's biggest rival qualifies as notable. Earlier in this same section, Dabo's win against Carolina while he was still the interim coach somehow bears mentioning, but I guess that's because it's his only win in the series, right? POV is slanting an article such that it only focuses on the positive aspects of a subject, and your deletion of sourced and notable material that you view as negative definitely violates the spirit of WP:NPOV. Whether you like it or not, Swinney has cemented his place in the record books as being the Clemson head coach who presides over Carolina's longest winning streak in the history of the rivalry. If you can find a similar streak to note in a Carolina head coach's article, feel free to do so. Actually, now that I think about it, this year's loss to FSU should probably be expanded upon, as that was also a record-setting home defeat for the Tigers, and is thus notable from that standpoint. See, we don't just note the "good" records that a coach is responsible for, because Wikipedia isn't a fan site. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's consider what's going to happen with this. I would say you and I have been the best defenses thus far against vandalism on both Clemson and SC sites, so it makes sense for us to work together. I agree it's not just a fan site; however, the Gamecock vandalism has been an effort to only highlight (and overstate) the negative about Swinney's career when his career has been more of a positive one based on stats. On the flip side, there's been a pretty swift effort to delete any negative information about SC athletics, and you have taken part in doing that as well (and I fully recognize I've done that with Clemson sites). Here's what I'm getting at: I fear that this opens the door to a "I can top you" battle between Clemson and SC editors to post negative information back and forth. While SC has enjoyed quite a bit of success these past four seasons, the remainder of their history is rather abysmal. Reading the South Carolina football, a reader wouldn't know that as it's a bit, well, colorful. But that's fine. I don't think there's a need to harp on every little tiny negative point in history. But consider how many coaches have losing streaks to Clemson, or embarrassing losses/seasons. It's very easy for me to sit down and chronicle all this stuff on the SC sites, but that just seems like a pissing contest between fans to me. We could even do it with Spurrier. For example, there's no mention of Spurrier's humiliating national title loss to Nebraska in 1995, but Gamecock fans have repeatedly pushed references to the 2011 Orange Bowl. Or we could go into extra detail over the NCAA investigation during his time. Is this worth it?
I'm also curious as to why you just now wish to add this detail? Is it due to the recent hostilities on both sides in the rivalry? You know I've been fighting vandals on this site for a while, and I know you follow all my edits. I'm curious as to why it's just now a sticking point. I guess here's the main thing: there is a LOT of significant negative information that could be written about SC football and its past coaches. I don't think it's really necessary to dive into all of that. But if you feel otherwise, well, I guess we can move forward from there. Your main argument over the name discrepancy was that UNC and Duke pages must be changed if the Clemson and SC pages were changed. Well, if we're going to highlight one person's every negative coaching moment, we're going to have to do it for them all. I can see it delving into petty edit wars, particular with fly-by-night random IP addresses that seek to vandalize both teams' pages.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, the reason the 2008 Clemson-SC game is mentioned is because Swinney won the coaching job after that win. As for the bowl win, it seems to be a commonplace on Wikipedia to note a coach's bowl victory at the end of the season. I notice on Spurrier's page, there is no mention of losses in bowl games at SC. I assume you'll be willing to add those in? Or the record blowout in an SEC championship game vs. Auburn since there's such a focus on Clemson's 2011 Orange Bowl loss? I'm all for accuracy and completeness; I just wanted to make sure you're willing to add those negatives in yourself. I've added negative information to Clemson sites in the past. Are you willing to do it for SC?--LesPhilky (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You're exaggerating to an absurd degree. If I or someone else had edited Dabo Swinney to include all five of Clemson's losses to Carolina over the past five years, you might have a point, but that's not what we are talking about here. No one is saying that we need to include "every little tiny negative point", but in this particular instance we are talking about a historic loss in the football series that matters the most to Clemson fans, alumni, players, etc., so it is most certainly notable. It's definitely more notable than some of the puffery you've been adding to this article over the past couple of days in what looks like a desperate attempt to make Swinney seem like one of college football's top coaches (odd that his name never seems to come up for any of the top job openings over the past few years). I get that you're President of the Dabo Fan Club, but an entire paragraph about his recruiting (they don't give trophies or championships for this part of the job), "finalist" for some insignificant Coach of the Year award? Come on. I could maybe see if he won the silly thing, but to make mention of the fact that he was in a list of ten coaches considered for an award that dates all the way back to 2006? Reaching. And the spin in this article was already dizzying. Just look at the ridiculously tiny amount of focus on Swinney's 2010 losing season. One line, and most of that is spent trying to turn the losses into moral victories by detailing how close they were. You keep bringing up the reference to the 2011 Orange Bowl as though you feel it shouldn't bear mentioning, even though it was a historic defeat filled with records for bowl futility. No one should have to "push" a reference to the first BCS bowl game played by a team from SC, if it's worth mentioning the first BCS bowl game won by a team from SC. And if I was truly trying to highlight the negative about Swinney, I'd have included a sourced mention of his well-publicized brush with the law while speeding to his radio show in Pickens County. Do you think speeding tickets are notable material for Wikipedia? If you feel it necessary to take a retaliatory approach to editing Wikipedia every time someone mentions anything negative relating to Clemson, then I guess you can have at it, but you'd better make sure the material you are adding is relevant and notable and not just some petty attempt at getting even. You want to add Spurrier's loss to Nebraska in the national title game while coaching at Florida? Be my guest. Just be warned that some of the Gators that maintain that section of the article can be a pretty touchy bunch. Want to add Carolina's loss to Auburn in the 2010 SEC Championship Game? Knock yourself out. You're editing the article of a coach who is already in the Hall of Fame, so nothing you can do is going to diminish the man's legacy or sterling reputation. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to make one final attempt at extending the olive branch here. I understand we've butted heads a lot in the past, but you and I are grown men who have the ability to really make these articles strong and block vandalism attempts together. There's no reason we can't move past it. Our difference is our school affiliation, and if we met on the street, I doubt we'd exhibit the animosity that you repeatedly show here. My intention is not retaliation. It's thoroughness. I've not once seen you ever post anything negative about SC, but I can show a track record that I've done it many times for Clemson when it's necessary factual information. I am not out to "diminish" Spurrier's legacy. Anyone who follows college football knows he's one of the greatest college coaches of all time. But there have been hiccups along the way that seem to be ignored. The speeding ticket topic is a red herring; we're talking about football coaching records. Sit back for a moment and look objectively at some of your claims. You emphasize spin, but the Spurrier article has more information about his time at SC than at Florida. That's like spending more time on Joe Montana's career at Kansas City than at San Francisco. Also, in reference to the 2010 season and the line that turns it into a moral victory. That line is almost the exact same as this one from the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry: "However, it is not completely lopsided in the Tigers' favor. Approximately forty games have been decided by a touchdown or less." Should we remove both? I'm okay with it if you are. My information on Swinney is sourced, relevant, and factual. He has an overwhelming amount of more positive information than negative (just as Spurrier does), and I don't see the problem with reflecting that. You were eager to post negative information about Swinney. Would you be willing to write some positive material as well?
Again, are you willing to work together in our editing attempts to not only improve the quality of the pages but to prevent vandalism? What can we both do to create a more affable environment? Should we discuss edits together first before posting something that might be seen as controversial or subjective?--LesPhilky (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with "olive branches", it's got to do with you taking exception to any edit to a Clemson article that has the slightest hint of negativity. To sit there and claim that Dabo Swinney losing a record five straight games to the Tigers' biggest rival isn't worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. I guarantee that you wouldn't be making the same claim if Steve Spurrier had suffered an eight-game losing streak to Clemson in his career. And let's talk about his career. You claim that all you care about is "thoroughness" and in the next breath complain that there is more information about Spurrier's coaching career at Carolina than Florida in his article. Well, there is a simple way to remedy what you think is a problem. This is Wikipedia, you can expand the Florida section of his article whenever you feel the urge. It's not "spin" at work in the USC section of the Spurrier article, it's thoroughness from a person who has an interest in the subject. I guess there just isn't a Gators fan out there who cares enough about their history to detail it here. And I'd like an answer about the speeding ticket question and whether or not you feel such incidents reach the level of notability for biographical articles. I think you know full well why I'm asking this question, and it goes to determining if you can truly be an editor of this project within the bounds of WP:NPOV. I've removed plenty of vandalism from Clemson articles during my years of editing, so I'll put my edit history up for review any day. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
If the speeding ticket question is that important, I think the answer is no, it doesn't warrant a place, and it wouldn't warrant it for Spurrier, either. These pages are about their careers as coaches, not their traffic violations. Why would it be relevant? Again, I pose the following questions: Would you be willing to write positive information about Swinney or Clemson? Are you willing to work together in our editing attempts to not only improve the quality of the pages but to prevent vandalism? What can we both do to create a more affable environment? Should we discuss edits together first before posting something that might be seen as controversial or subjective?--LesPhilky (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, I do not take "exception to any edit to a Clemson article that has the slightest hint of negativity." My exception with this particular edit is that this could open the door to a lot of silliness from other parties. As I've stated and proved, I have added in negative information about Clemson to other Wikipedia pages. But we can leave it if you think it's that important.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you think traffic violations do not pass muster for notability in a Wikipedia biographical article. So in the spirit of moving forward in a cooperative effort, as a show of good faith, I'd like you to take the lead and remove mention of a speeding ticket from the "Personal" section of Jadeveon Clowney. I'd do it myself, but I think it would mean more if you took the lead on this just in case someone takes issue with such an edit. I will of course back you up in this action, because we are in agreement that such information is not notable for inclusion here. So what do you say? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I can agree to this. I'm assuming you would feel the same way about Sammy Watkins's arrest? I just removed the Clowney portion. Maybe you can do the same on Sammy Watkins page. Now, back to the question at hand: What can we both do to bury the hatchet and create a more cooperative editing environment?--LesPhilky (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Guess we better take this to Clowney's talk page. Someone already reverted me.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The difference between Sammy's run in with the law and Clowney and Swinney's is that Sammy was actually arrested. That difference was a sticking point when I had a debate about this issue at Stephen Garcia. If you're interested, you can read all about it at the Talk page to that article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
A speeding ticket is technically an arrest ending when the officer releases the driver (it even says it is an arrest on the ticket). Watkins's arrest was a misdemeanor. Either way, it's the same situation: misdemeanor charges that occur off the football field and are not a notable biographical moment in their careers. Consider that Clowney committed his crime twice whereas Watkins has been clean since his arrest. Either way, I don't think it's relevant for either of them.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have started a topic on the Sammy Watkins talk page and would like you to weigh in. Some kind of consensus needs to be reached on noting a player's misdemeanor charges. I invited the other parties involved.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

James B. Holderman, USC presidents[edit]

As you seem to be very active in topics relating to the University of South Carolina on here, I thought I'd just drop a line that I created a very basic stub for former presidents Arthur K. Smith, James B. Holderman, and John M. Palms if you'd like to expand. It looks like at least for Holderman that there is much to be expanded upon. Best, Connormah (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Clemson University steroid scandal[edit]

In the lede, 'Clemson University' does not carry any qualification, and I added 'South Carolina' for the large majority who are not familiar with this institution. Why did you delete this? It is normal to provide a few words of explanation. Valetude (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. All someone who isn't familiar with that institution would have to do is click on a link to educate themselves, if they felt so inclined. If you feel this is asking too much of this site's readership, then by all means restore your edit, and you'll get no interference from me. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Garnet. With your indulgence, I have actually done just that. Even big cities like Memphis are usually qualified with the name of the state. I just think 'Clemson University' looked odd without. Valetude (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Invite[edit]

I didn't hear any response from SCRooster, so I want to also extend it to you: If you're going to the game Saturday, I'd like to invite you to swing by and have a beer or two at my tailgate. We never seem to see eye to eye online, so perhaps over a few cold ones, we can reach better understanding. Let me know and I'll give you directions. Have a happy Thanksgiving.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, and if the game was at 3 or 7, I'd probably take you up on it. But we've got to get up pretty early just to get there, park and eat a quick bite, so I don't think we're going to have any spare time for tailgating of any kind. Thanks though. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Noon games suck. It's 6:30 a.m. and we're heading out the door now.--LesPhilky (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, noon games are the worst. Safe travels. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

SCarolina teams list[edit]

The lists enumerate the 21 sports that the Gamecocks participate in... The article covers only 14 of them except to mention them in passing in the facilities section... When the lists are displayed near the top of the article, a casual reader can easily determine if a school does or does not compete in a particular sport... GWFrog (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Every sport in the list you added is mentioned in the table in the article, along with pertinent info regarding notable achievements for each. Hence the redundancy of having a section that does nothing but list the sports. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

UNC-SCAR Rivalry[edit]

Hey man, I see you frequently edit articles about South Carolina. Hope you can give me some insight on where to go for information. Like I know i've seen a SCAR football flyer advertising "Carolina vs. North Carolina". But I cant find it! Come give me a hand man, if you want. ESSE QUAM VIDERI!CarolinaBlue (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Carolina Blue and Garnet & Black[edit]

Look man, I'm sorry for snapping and getting frustrated with you. I'll admit that I am a hot head who is used to being able to fight people who I feel disrespected by. And you must epically crush the man who disrespects you or fear losing your power base. Call it archaic madness, but it works for where we are and what we do. But stepping outside of the Alpha male world I live in, I need to learn to not take everything as an insult. Deleting all of my work is acceptable by Wikipedia standards if you feel the information isn't noteworthy. I still feel it highly disrespectful but need to learn my environment. I can't go fighting everyone who comes at me wrong. Accusing me to be a Clemson alum or fan using an identity to attack or degrade the appearance of South Carolina is still a personal attack on my integrity. And I hope you realize why I was so offended. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. As cheesy as these values may sound, straying from one is detrimental to any soldier, paratrooper, ranger or whomever you may be. So I hope you can see why I was so offended by you accusing me of subversion. Anyways, I've been told that I need to control my temper and not misconstrue everything as an attack on my position on manhood. So for losing my temper and calling you a keyboard warrior, I am sorry.

I can't tell you how much that I will be on Wikipedia but here's to a new start between us.

Sua Sponte and Esse Quam Videri my friend.

Respectfully, CarolinaBlue (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

How could I not graciously accept the apology of an Army Ranger, a man who has served the country that I love? I too am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot, and hope that we can move forward in a spirit of cooperation in this project. Believe me, the values you mentioned above are certainly not "cheesy" to me, even though they seem to be sadly in short supply in today's society. Your service to our nation is gratefully appreciated. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The original Columbia Municipal[edit]

Weird--I always assumed that Columbia Municipal Stadium as originally built in 1934 is essentially the lower half of the current Williams-Brice Stadium's grandstands. How's that not the case--just because one grandstand was completely rebuilt? HangingCurveSwing for the fence 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The only parts of the lower level that were present in 1934 were the East and West Lower, the North and South end zone sections were not present at that time. I'm also not entirely certain that the West Lower is original, as that section is elevated above field level, while the East Lower has seating that runs all the way to the ground behind the bench on that side. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I figured ...should have been a little clearer when I mentioned it in my edit earlier. Thanks ... HangingCurveSwing for the fence 21:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Need a quick opinion . . . .[edit]

Does anyone in Columbia or Raleigh consider this to be a real rivalry: NC State–South Carolina football rivalry? The creator has a long history of creating articles for very marginal CFB "rivalries," several of which have been deleted at AfD. Another editor has PROD'ed it, and if the creator removes the PROD tag, I plan to submit it for AfD. Any objections, sir? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It wasn't even that big a rivalry when USC was a member of the ACC, and it certainly isn't now. I seriously doubt you'd find many Gamecock fans today that would tell you differently. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
What's your take on the UNC-USC series? Real rivalry, or another yawner? My perception is the Clemson-USC rivalry overshadows all others. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, USC and Clemson are definitely each other's biggest rival, but any time there is a "Battle of the Carolinas", it draws attention. The rivalry between USC and UNC was perhaps more intense when both were members of the same conference, but there is certainly some animosity that still resonates from those years any time the two schools meet in any sport. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll leave the UNC-USC rivalry article to you and the UNC guys. The UNC-USC article could definitely use more significant coverage of the rivalry in independent sources per GNG. You know the drill. I'm still doing the BEFORE homework for the NC State-USC "rivalry," but I expect to nominate it for AfD in the next couple of days. I will ping you when I do; editors who are USC fans need to be heard on their perception of the non-existence of this supposed "rivalry".
BTW, what's the word out of Columbia on possible replacements for Spurrier? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well how about that[edit]

Hey there. Sorry about reverting your edits here[4]. You're absolutely right, and I didn't check the talk page. My apologies. Boomer VialHolla 10:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I'm just glad to see that some people (other than myself) have actually bothered to read through all that stuff and suss out the long strange history of that particular article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Response to Boomer Val's accusations [5][edit]

Please show me where in any of those SPIs that I was ever definitively linked with the IP editor in question. But you do whatever you feel you have to do, I just think it's rather ironic that you are having the wool pulled over your eyes by a user who has admitted to using IPs to edit without logging in. As far as I understand it, that is the very definition of sock puppetry. And I see that this clearly experienced user with a brand-new account is trying to pull the same con on another editor by claiming that the reason for this shiny new account is because a cyberstalker had their e-mail address[6], a piece of information that isn't even used to establish an account on Wikipedia. But hey, if none of these things is a red flag for you, then just go on swallowing everything you're being spoon fed. Also, did you read the admin's closing comments in that SPI from Jan 2012? Looks like someone else noticed something strange about a relatively new account (only 76 edits) complaining ""How many more years is this going to continue?" and then bringing up WP:BOOMERANG. The user who filed that report replied with an excuse about losing their prior account due to "having to move/death in the family". Sound familiar? If not, let me spell it out…ThomasCWolfe and JustAGal2 are most likely the same person. If anyone has a cyberstalker here, sadly I think it's me. Oh, and to address your assertion that my edits match up closely to the IP editor in question, I think my single revert of the Clemson Football article was my first edit there since March 2014. I've tried to avoid the articles dealing solely with Clemson ever since I and another editor had a dispute that led to both of us getting a 6-month break from editing the articles of our rival schools. I guess I couldn't ignore it in this case because I saw a single editor attempting to circumvent consensus by deleting relevant and sourced material in a deceptive manner (using multiple IPs and phony edit summaries). My bad. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Per this[7], I see now that you are completely uninvolved with ViperNerd. I just want to extend my apologies for accusing you of being a sockpuppet. Boomer VialHolla 14:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to finally see the truth. I don't have any use for editors as disruptive as that guy, who fully deserved to be banned. I'm also of the belief that the Nerd never really left Wikipedia, but continues to use IPs to be a general nuisance. If I ran this place, there would be absolutely no anonymous IP editing, as ~95% of it seems to be vandalism or other juvenile antics, but that's a debate for another day. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
How come you don't just file a SPI against them? I mean it is pretty obvious that JAG is ThomasC.Wolfe, and is only here because they have an axe to grind against you. It would never hurt to run a checkuser. I also found another account that goes by the name 'JustAGal'. Proof right there that the JustAGal2 is using multiple accounts. It could help strengthen your case. Boomer VialHolla 08:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

University of South Carolina and other institutions with "Highest Research Activity"[edit]

I know you're passionate about this article, and I also know we've locked horns before. So, please forgive me for reverting you. Nevertheless, it was necessary. Clemson University has also achieved this classification, as proven by the cite that was provided. Perhaps more directly, it would be better to cite this. Regardless, Clemson does have this status, making USC not the only one. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Founders Park, Florida[edit]

Hello, FYI, Founders Park in [[Islamorada, FL is an actual place, e.g., https://www.bing.com/search?q=trip+advisor+islamorada+foundres+park&pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR. Froid (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Being an actual place isn't the standard for inclusion in an article's "See Also" section. Guidelines exist that cover this subject, and are detailed at MOS:SEEALSO. The relevant point being, "The 'See also' section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages". A waterfront park in Florida that shares nothing but a name clearly falls under disambiguation and has no relevance in an article about a baseball stadium in South Carolina (nor does mention of a TV show that also has no relevance to the subject of the article). Please do not clutter this article with pointless links. Thank you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Tables[edit]

The tables I'm inserting aren't spams. Supermathguy68 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2016 (EDT)

I never stated they were "spams", but they are indiscriminate lists of statistics that are not notable to the article in question, and I have mentioned the Wikipedia policy that argues against the inclusion of this type of material (WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTASTATSBOOK). If you believe otherwise, make your case in the article's Talk page and seek consensus for the addition. Continuing to revert without explanation is edit warring, and is also a violation of Wikipedia policy. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. That table is not indiscriminate, so stop reverting my editing. Supermathguy68 (talk) 8:45, 4 September 2016 (EDT)

You are ignoring relevant Wikipedia policies which have been pointed out to you on more than one occasion. You are also refusing to seek consensus for edits on article Talk page for changes that are not obviously notable. Continuing to revert without discussion is edit warring by definition. STOP DOING THIS. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, GarnetAndBlack. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

GarnetAndBlack, be the better person and start the discussion on the talk page. Y'all are edit warring and have violated the three-revert rule. I'm about to notify an administrator if it doesn't stop. I've warned the other user, now I'm warning you. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You have reverted material that you called "irrelevant and not notable", so please have the courage of your conviction to stand behind your initial (correct) assessment. I will be reverting the article to remove mention of two losses to Clemson that have absolutely zero notability in a general article about Carolina football. This is not "edit warring", this is restoring an article to be in line with accepted Wikipedia policy. The wins over Clemson mentioned in the article are notable for historic reasons, as is the loss that ended a five-game win streak by USC, so all of these are detailed. Losses to a heavily-favored rival are not relevant to this article if there was nothing else notable about the games, other than to biased editors who are attempting to use Wikipedia as a fan forum. Two or three-game win streaks in a rivalry series are not notable, unless they are happening for the first time. Not every piece of information that is "factual and sourced" is notable. I know this, you know this, and I suspect that our edit warrior Les knows this as well, so why isn't the onus to "be the better person" on him? He is an obviously biased editor seeking to include material of highly dubious notability into this article, so why shouldn't he be the one who has to seek consensus by starting a Talk page discussion? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Garnet, I said be the better person because I've dealt with you before and figured a template would be disrespectful. If they truly are notable, you among others would/should be backing them up with reliable sources. Something you should know by now. Yes, I now realize there were a few good edits in there, but I'm on a mobile device until my computer gets fixed and didn't see those edits. Since you two are experienced users and if you two want to keep adding/removing the scores of the notable games without seeking a consensus first, I'll take the both of you to a notice board for edit-warring. I'm tired of seeing a couple of three year-olds fight. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, as you can probably see, Les is at it again. Removing game results in the South Carolina football article as he sees fit, ignoring notability, even after you warned him about this type of editing. Oh, and you'll also notice that he summarily deleted the template you placed on his Talk page, what does that tell you about this guy? Do you see what kind of person we're dealing with now? If you want to file an edit warring report, by all means have at it, but I'll easily defend my actions here. I'm trying to maintain an article with regard to Wikipedia policy, Les is simply using it as a battleground. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)