User talk:Kobra98

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

November 2012[edit]

Bizzell Library 4-15-2006 11-20-33 AM.jpg

Hello, Kobra98! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about the OU taskforce, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oklahoma. I hope you join us in making the University of Oklahoma articles better everyday. Thanks!!!

--Dcheagletalkcontribs 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 19:41, Friday, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1999 Oklahoma Sooners football team concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1999 Oklahoma Sooners football team, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Table over written words[edit]

Look I'm not trying to start a war over this but you have to see that the information can be better explained in written word then just slapped into a table. Using a table is taking the easy way out on things, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as editors of the encyclopedia we need to be able to explain things in depth which is why we write articles with prose not just tables please take a look at this before reverting.

Tables and prose[edit]

Hi Kobra98,

It appears that Dcheagle is closely following the tables vs. prose style guide when editing articles, however you find tables more readable. It was discussed here and there.

At one of the articles, your and his interaction involved 9 undos of your edits by Dcheagle.

As you came to Live Chat to ask for help, I would like to encourage that:

  1. Question is opened at the relevant wikiproject talk page about pertinence of tables in such context. (It is your task.)
  2. No further edits in this direction are made, not by you and not by Dcheagle.
  3. After community agreement is reached, it is followed.

In general, I would like to encourage that in general we all

  1. (It appears to be his fault; please understand this is not example to follow.) Don't resort to FA and other article statuses when choosing how to write them, or justifying our actions. The articles should be better, and these statuses are irrelevant to the intermediate work. I'm very positive that it is not relevant to discussion of how to write an article better.
  2. Don't use edit summaries to talk to other contributors. When we realize we're putting more information in edit summary than a summary of the edit, start a discussion.
  3. Be very very passive about removing accurate information from an article where you think it's not styled properly. Edit war barrier is not 3 here, it is 1 — styling is a much much less urgent matter than content. (I observed that both you and the other contributor removed accurate sourced content due to preference of different way to put it.)

Many thanks,
--Gryllida (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant discussion at the WikiProject talk page got through, thanks! (I took the liberty to convert links to internal ones in your message, so they look less ugly.) Gryllida (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1999 Oklahoma Sooners football team[edit]

Hello Kobra98. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "1999 Oklahoma Sooners football team".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1999 Oklahoma Sooners football team}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Safiel (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 19:41, Friday, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeff Ferguson (American football)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jeff Ferguson (American football) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Bisswajit 20:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Ferguson (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Blake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

National Championships[edit]

Hello Kobra - Regarding your removal of 2012 from Notre Dame's unclaimed NCs: While I agree that it's debatable to include 2012 as among ND's unclaimed titles, your edit summary regarding NCAA "official selectors" leads to a problem across the length and breadth of Wikipedia CFB articles. As you know, the NCAA neither names nor recognizes an official FBS champion; the farthest that the organization goes is to list champions from some major selectors, currently BCS, AP, Football Writers, National Football Foundation, USAToday/CNN, UPI, Helms, College Football Research Associates, and National Championship Foundation, the last three only for pre-1935 and inception of the AP poll. The list of schools and selectors is here [1], and I am sure that it is a page that you know.

The College Football Data Warehouse has a more inclusive list of selectors here [2], including the Colley Matrix which controversially listed Notre Dame as #1 even after the BCS loss, and Colley also named Oklahoma State #1 over Alabama the previous year. The relevance of that is questionable at best, but it leads to the problem for which I offer this illustration. Your user page includes reference to your support for Oklahoma Sooners, a fine school with an outstanding athletic tradition. However - the Sooners football page here [[3]] lists 10 unclaimed national titles - but half of these are from selectors not listed by the NCAA at all, nor does Oklahoma appear on the NCAA page for any of the years listed as unclaimed. A summary is here, with the Wikipedia article on [[4]] providing the names of the OU selectors for the years in question.

NCAA Cornell OKLA Billingsley
NCAA Maryland OKLA Berryman, CFRA*
NCAA Ohio State, Auburn OKLA Berryman
NCAA USC OKLA Poling System
NCAA Notre Dame, Alabama OKLA CFRA*, Devold, Dunkel
NCAA Alabama, USC OKLA Devold, Dunkel, Helms,* L, MGR, PS, R(FACT), SR
NCAA Georgia OKLA Dunkel, Matthews
NCAA Penn State OKLA Berryman, CFRA*, Devold, Dunkel

I have asterisked the selectors who also appear on the NCAA page. As suggested by your edit summary for the ND article, the years 1915, 1957, 1967, 1980, and 2003 should be removed promptly from the OU article since none of the selectors listed for those years is approved by the NCAA. In fact, all of them should be. The NCAA clearly stops using both Helms and CFRA once the AP poll begins; neither of the two ever appears again in the NCAA selectors for any year after 1935, though both continued to make selections off and on for years afterward, and the "unclaimed" Oklahoma titles listed on Wikipedia for all of the years listed after 1915 include selectors no longer approved or used by the NCAA in the years in the OU article. 1915, of course, is listed only by Billingsley, a selector never approved by the NCAA.

This is clearly a can of worms. There are 117 FBS programs in the NCAA, and all have Wiki articles. The nature of NC claims is volatile and unclear. Alabama, for example, claims 15 titles, though the NCAA recognizes only 13. Notre Dame claims 11, but the NCAA recognizes 13. If the metric "approved by the NCAA" is applied across all CFB articles, then a good guess would be that about 20 or so will require some changes regarding NC claims. But the Oklahoma article is in serious error right now: both the unclaimed NC number and the assertion in the text that "NCAA recognizes national titles for Oklahoma" in the unclaimed years are patently untrue. I will not edit that at the moment because I have never worked on the OU article, and major changes such as this would entail ought properly to be done by editors who have worked on the article, as I note that you have done. However - if as in your good-faith edit summary on the ND article the NCAA list is the measure by which we include NC claims and unclaimed titles, then that article must by corrected ASAP. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And further - your reverting edit summary says "the NCAA recognizes certain selectors as official, and this is not one of them" - yet the link that you provide (to a page I know well) states unequivocally that "The NCAA has not enacted, adopted or otherwise approved of the process described below. The NCAA has no role in the selection of the institutions that participate in postseason bowl games and does not sponsor a Football Bowl Subdivision championship." There is no recognition of selectors as "official" beyond what can be inferred from their page that I linked and used above. Sensei48 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
On page 74 of the annual record book I showed you, there IS a list of selectors that the NCAA recognizes. A couple pages down, it has a list of every year, along with teams that were recognized by these selectors. I go by this when editing pages on Wikipedia, though, obviously, many people don't. It includes all the national titles on Oklahoma Sooners football. I'm not sure how you could go wrong using the NCAA's official record book, so I suggest this be used all throughout Wikipedia, including for Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. Kobra98 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. I also know this page, but your link directed to the BCS section. Not that it matters, but on page 74, Colley IS listed as a major selector, under the name "Wes Colley" rather than by the system, the Colley Matrix. It would be easy to source that Colley did indeed recognize ND as NC after the BCS debacle because it excited a multitude of appropriately negative comments, as has the NCAA's posture regarding this whole question. Note that page 70 includes Colley for the years 2002,03,04,05, and 06 but not following, reason enough to leave 2012 out of the ND article beyond the obvious. However, may I point out that nowhere does the NCAA list or denote these selectors as "official" or "approved" in any way: that is an inference. The organization is scrupulous about avoiding such terms and opens the presentation of the list of selectors with "The criteria for being included in this historical list of poll selectors is that the poll be national in scope,either through distribution in newspaper, television, radio and/or computer online. The list includes both former selectors, who were instrumental in the sport of college football, and selectors presently among the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) selectors." It is an "historical list," not an official or approved one, as above. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I stand by what I said before, but I guess I'll edit it slightly. If the NCAA decides that a selector is worth putting in their record book, and if they choose to use this selector for a certain year in their record book, then I think it's worth putting on Wikipedia. If they do NOT use this selector, or not for a certain year, then I don't think it should be put on a Wikipedia article. A line has to be drawn somewhere, because there are a ridiculous amount of people selecting national champions for Division I FBS football, and we can't recognize them all. I say the line should be drawn here. Kobra98 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1970 Oklahoma Sooners football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

List of most consecutive games scoring in NCAA football[edit]

Hi. I reverted your move of List of most consecutive games scoring in NCAA football. The "List of..." prefix is common in such pages, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists - indeed quite a bit clearer about what the page actually is - and the title you assigned to it was kind of confusing. It is a good idea to take up Page Moves / renames on the talk page before you perform them. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your other edits to the page, because you did not explain what you were doing in edit summaries, and at least one of them was incorrect - Michigan's streak is no longer active, and, the record as shown in the NCAA record book is incorrect, as the explanatory footnote (which you removed without comment) sets forth. If you elect to restore any correct edits, it would be helpful if you were to summarize in your edit summaries what you are intending to do. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries[edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! UW Dawgs (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)