User talk:UW Dawgs

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


Contents

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, UW Dawgs. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! —Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Name of conference award articles[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Name_of_articles_on_conference_awards that you are invited to participate in.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Content removal[edit]

Please note that I reverted your removal of the navigation box from Mike Van Raaphorst as there was no explanation given for its removal. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Pacific-12 Conference football award navboxes[edit]

UW Dawgs, happy new year. I've nominated three navboxes that you recently created for deletion. Please see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#January 3. Thanks and all the best, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jabari Issa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CFL (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) 11:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Byron Haines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Halfback and Half back
Charles Newton (American football) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fullback and Randolph Township, Indiana
Shane Pahukoa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tackle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sonicsgate. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

See discussion initiated on Talk:Sonicsgate UW Dawgs (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:DRILiveatCBGB1984.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:DRILiveatCBGB1984.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:TheDirtyRottenPower.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:TheDirtyRottenPower.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Dirty Rotten Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trust Me (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) 11:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

12th man (football)[edit]

Appreciate the advice but there was nothing in my edits at 12th man (football) that constitute "vandalism". In fact, I provided explanation and justification for each change I made and those were based on the actual content of the recently provided reference sources. There were claims made based allegedly on those sources when in fact, the source information actually refuted the claims being made. As such, it is reasonable to edit the article to match the information within these sources. Thank you.Macae (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In reference to your edit at Indianapolis Colts Ring of Honor, my edits were in reference to comments[1] made by Shane Hinckley, Director Collegiate Licensing Texas A&M System, regarding current legal proceedings with the Indianapolis Colts. Thanks NoOpinionsJustFacts (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) NoOpinionsJustFacts

See talk page. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your continued support of Randolph Duke, a Texas fan who is a well-known internet troll that has made a personal crusade to bash and destroy everything and anything "Aggie" is troubling, as is your repeated use of "cited material" that is nothing more than the user citing himself. This is the equivalent of allowing Osama Bin Laden to edit pages related to Israel, Judaism, the United States, or anything that doesn't subscribe to Wahabbi Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.44.241 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Note, the related 12th man (football) article is now in protected mode due to the level of edit warring by anon IPs, sock puppets (WP:PUPPET), and such. FYI. You're welcome to create an account and/or join the discussion. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


just wanted to add that I noticed Randolph Duke is editing Texas A&M 12th Man related pages. I don't normally question the motivations of Wiki edits but in this case the guy is a blatant internet troll who went to the University of Texas (A&M's major rival FYI) who goes around to various message boards/articles/and comment sections, all under the same name, with the specific intent to bash A&M.

You can find examples of him doing these things with these links

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-military-schools.php/3 in the comments section

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/141664-aggy-spreads-their-cheeks-on-the-national-stage/page9 a Texas message board

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?109523-The-Top-Ten-Things-You-Didn-t-Know-About-Texas-A-amp-M/page2 posted on a La Tech message board just before A&M played them in 2012

http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2014/1/27/5348976/12th-man-history-texas-am-aggies-e-king-gill-seattle-seahawks# again you can find him in the comments section

I just can't see letting him edit A&M related pages when he so clearly has a seemingly obsessive bias. Kentatm (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)kentatm

Usernames aren't proof of identity or intent. Wikipedia has robust policies on WP:Conflict of interest issues. As of 7 January 2014 (25 days ago), welcome to Wikipedia! UW Dawgs (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A username by itself is not proof of identity. However, in this case, there's a known pattern and consistencies across multiple platforms. His edits have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring accuracy; rather the need to "Bring Aggy down". THIS is the actual person http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_13651540 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.44.241 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

understood on the Wiki username policy but I just wanted to bring to your attention that the specific username Randolph Duke has a long history of attacking Texas A&M on the internet. Perhaps it is not enough to ban him from editing A&M related articles however I do think it should be noted that specific name has been involved in countless attacks on A&M in many different internet locations. Is it possible that multiple people use that name and have all happened to constantly attack A&M? Sure. But the odds of that are... well... Just a heads up is all. Thanks for responding so quickly. :-) Kentatm (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)kentatm

Randolph Duke, A/K/A CHARLES M. SATTERFIELD, graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, first semester Fall 1980 last semester Fall 1984, BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION major PETROLEUM LAND MANAGEMENT Dec 22, 1984, is a well known A&M detractor. His identity may be readily discovered using his IP address. He will likely cause you more trouble than his ability to edit is worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccrex (talkcontribs) 17:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I welcome (yet another) WP:SPA and possible WP:PUPPET with a minute edit history, solely focused on TAMU, coming to my talk page to "warn" me about a human I've neither met, nor corresponded with. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
How is Mesko perhaps the most famous interloper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimpsonsDidIt (talkcontribs) 05:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Pacific-12 Player of the Year[edit]

Just being bold. I'll inform you if I decide to open a discussion.--Yankees10 07:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pacific-12 Conference, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Shaw and Mark Helfrich (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) 09:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

NFL Draft section format[edit]

Hey, I saw that you're a contributor to college football articles, so could you leave your opinion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject College football#NFL_Draft_section. I'm trying to get responses. Kobra98 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at my talk page. Your edits appear to be disruptive.

You can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.187.169 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, based on the 12th Man section above, it appears you have some major issues with a certain school from Texas. Your most recent attacks lend further support to your bias and raise very serious questions about your ability to edit in a constructive manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.187.169 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wkoppel[edit]

In case you hadn't seen it - these aren't new issues: Link. JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted[edit]

Hi thank you for your message

I have reverted your decision to revert my edits.

I hope you don't mind but I have now listed the reason for these changes in the edit summery.

Kind regards Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

I have reverted an edit you made to Indianapolis Colts. A discussion was brought up to include or not include him in retired jerseys on the article's talk page. It is not officially retired by the Colts and should be left out. Chambr (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLVIII[edit]

Hi, I saw you reverted the anonymous edits to Super Bowl XLVIII earlier today. The weird thing is, the IP was technically correct, since one of the turnovers was a fumble. I realise the IP's wording was a little – well – crappy, but we shouldn't be saying that Kaepernick threw three interceptions in the fourth quarter if he didn't. – PeeJay 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Max Unger[edit]

I thought about that. If there were only two Max Ungers, I would have given the ball player preference, but with three? That would require two hatnotes on every article. I dunno...I'm sure someone will change it at some point. I'm going to make certain that every reference to him leads to his article, not the dab page. (Max doesn't exactly look like he's headed to the Football Hall of Fame, anyway) WQUlrich (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: Most of the links that lead to the dab page seem to be connected to navboxs (three, maybe four) if those were changed, all those links would disappear...but I can't figure out how to change them. WQUlrich (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yah, I'm having second thoughts myself, going through all these links. Now, however, I'm afraid I'll really mess things up trying to undo it. WQUlrich (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) (How do we take care of the disambiguation page?, for example) WQUlrich (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to involve an administrator in this...If he/she can tell me how to undo this without really screwing everything up, I certainly will. My apologies...(can you guess that I'm not a sports fan?) WQUlrich (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I hate to sit by while someone cleans up after me...let me know if I can assist. I use library computers, so I only have an hour left today, then I won't be back until 11:00 AM (PDT) tomorrow. WQUlrich (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Thanx for the heads-up... Not only do I agree with you, I am opposed to User:Msjraz64 going ahead and making the changes he has recommended... GWFrog (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern Conference may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon The statement that I added contains no original research and is a reliable source. Thank you.Macae (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of college football teams by weekly appearances atop AP Poll
added a link pointing to 2013 college football season
Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks
added a link pointing to 2013 college football season

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Most weeks number 1[edit]

Hey, I've edited that page the past several years (including defending it from an idiot mob wanting to delete it for fun). Thanks for the additions, edits, etc. I think it's a fun stat that people like to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.45.122.180 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey UW Dawgs[edit]

Dude, why did you delete my comment about the oregon ducks beating the Washington Huskies? The Huskies suck, and get crushed by the ducks every year. You should be absolutely ashamed of deleting that. Oh well, I guess it's just another butthurt huskies fan. Your team is bad and you should feel bad. Keep calm and keep on sucking huskies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdroel (talkcontribs) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2013 college football season. 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) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Standard GGC Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

I undid your edit at Warren Moon because according to the template information for the Player Infoboxes at WPNFL, only the most recent college before entering the NFL is supposed to be listed. Chambr (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tear Ya Down: The Rarities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hammered (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) 10:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just saw your 3RR report[edit]

What the hell kind of bullshit was that? First of all, I was altering the text of my comment (which was perfectly legitimate) to address the concerns brought up by Arkon, therefore there wasn't multiple reversions. Secondly, my comment on Arkon's talk page, which you eagerly documented despite it having nothing to do with reversions, was a direct response to this edit summary, which you didn't mention at all in your attempt to smear my character. And what was all that nonsense about the totally unrelated edits on the previous day? You should be ashamed of yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! Face-smile.svgThis e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability of List of professional football players who spent their entire career with one franchise[edit]

First off, I appreciate your recent work on the List of professional football players who spent their entire career with one franchise. The table functionality you implemented certainly increases the usability and potential usefulness of the list. That said, I still have concerns about whether this list is necessary and appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I've raised my concerns on the article talk page and the issue has also been discussed on the WP:NFL talk page. I'd love to hear your argument as to why this article should exist. Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2016 . . .[edit]

UW Dawgs, may you continue to make Wikipedia a better place in the New Year. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fairleigh Dickinson Women's Basketball[edit]

I see that you helped fix a broken link in the article, Fairleigh Dickinson Knights women's basketball. Can you please help me fix the link that isn't working, for the current 2015-16 team in the infobox?

Done.
2015–16 Fairleigh Dickinson Knights women's basketball team (correct)
2015-16 Fairleigh Dickinson Knights women's basketball team (wrong)
It was the difference between an hyphen (-) and an endash (–), see WP:DATERANGE for more context. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Thanks for updating the numerous "Pacific-12" references to the new consensus of "Pac-12" —Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Motörhead discography[edit]

Thank you! Please, do. Hark01 (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of the removal of a "well-cited paragraph"[edit]

Hi. I don't understand your edit here. What were you trying to revert? I have restored the edit, and no references have been removed. There are 95 references now, same as 95 references in the previous version.

Also, "CE" as an edit summary means "copy edit". See WP:ESL. I explained what I was doing – copy editing the references and moving to the bottom. epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

NBA season templates.[edit]

I'm sorry for arguing with you over Template:Oklahoma City Thunder seasons. Thank you for updating both templates. I'm requesting that you or another admin please delete Template:Buffalo Braves seasons & Template:Seattle SuperSonics seasons, as both templates are now not necessary & redundant (the list of seasons in both templates is covered by Template:Los Angeles Clippers seasons & Template:Oklahoma City Thunder seasons). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) Please stop changing my edits on Oklahoma City Thunder seasons. I clearly have cited my changes at the bottom of the page both from ESPN and Basketball Reference. If you keep deleting my edits I will have to pursue legal action. 00:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Scjessey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hillary Clinton email controversy has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Tag team edit warring is still edit warring. Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

1. My edit (revert to inclusion of another editor's content) was in fact, NOT undone. So I'm unsure if you are confused, trolling, or both. 2. The content which you have 3x blanked, has achieved thematic consensus for inclusion. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Motorhead - The World Is Ours Vol. 1.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Motorhead - The World Is Ours Vol. 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Motorhead - The World Is Ours Vol. 2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Motorhead - The World Is Ours Vol. 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Cult[edit]

Please stop your vandalism on The Cult. Just because articles for Grant Fitzpatrick and Damon Fox don't exist doesn't mean they should be linked and the Damon Fox article redirected to some movie clearly isn't the same guy from The Cult. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)'

I posted WP:REDLINK on your Talk, the article Talk, and in the reverting comments. You are engaged in disruptive editing. Please familarize yourself with REDLINK. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of meeting between AG and Bill Clinton[edit]

Thank you for your post at this RfC. Would you mind adding Include or Exclude as appropriate at the beginning to make it easier to see your input?CFredkin (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your "thanks"[edit]

Dawgs... we're gonna get along just fine. I'm a Pac-12 Homer... FIGHT ON! KamelTebaast 05:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:C475:4D20:: highway editor[edit]

I noticed you reverted 2602:306:c475:4d20:846f:29aa:aea8:bbc2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on June 30. Just so you know: It's been back as multiple IPs again, and I've given it a final warning at User talk:2602:306:C475:4D20:3441:F37C:110B:2971. Let me know if you see any more of that behavior after tonight. If it makes any more unsourced edits, I'm going to report it to the admins for a rangeblock. --Closeapple (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 August[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) 00:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beno Bryant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tailback (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) 10:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 August[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) 00:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Spurious?[edit]

Why is 'Lizard' able to post data on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football talk page, and I am not? The vast majority of my post was legitimate and in response to some incorrect information that he posted. A quick look at his page lets you know that he is an avid lsu fan, and therefore has a definite bias attitude in this matter. Had he not insulted me and made personal assumptions about me, I would not have done the same. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talkcontribs) 19:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, UW Dawgs. You have new messages at :Category talk:Lists of college football statistical leaders by team.
Message added 19:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lochtegate[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Lochtegate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely redundant to Ryan Lochte; article itself a fine example of recentism: UNDUE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed Prod, as allowed. Article is clearly about all four swimmers. GNG in play. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Lochtegate for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lochtegate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lochtegate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 August[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) 00:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lochtegate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon (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) 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

David Carr consensus[edit]

What is the current consensus? Nobody but me, Lizard, and crash have discussed this issue. Me and Lizard appear to be, for the most part, in agreement. We either include both pieces of information or we remove both. I'm fine with either option. Crash is the one who is dead set on removing the draft legacy part and keeping the super bowl ring information. I've argued that David Carr's bust legacy is far more relevant than him winning a Super bowl ring as a backup QB. If that piece of information is to be included in the intro, then the draft legacy must be included as well based on relevancy alone. Me and Lizard are in agreement on this. Look at my talk page where we discussed that. Then as I laid out my reasoning, Crash abandoned his argument. He said he doesn't care anymore and that we can delete the article. So it appears the consensus is to include both pieces of information or remove both. I'm fine with either option. As a result, I've edited it to include the bust legacy, but now I have you reverting my edits. What is your deal? Manning954 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch on this sock. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor was blocked for 3RR, then indef blocked as Sock. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're the guy who sniffed it out, so well done. JohnInDC (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
JohnInDC, UW Dawgs. I'm not even sure I'm even allowed to have another account. My accounts were banned, but IP wasn't, so before they ban this one, I just wanted to let you guys know my side of the story. If you are interested, you can read the appeal I wrote on here:User talk:Edday1051#August 2016, which was shockingly denied(obvious sarcasm). I'll rehash most of the same stuff here. Some of the main points being that I never tried to hide the fact that I had multiple accounts. I didn't even know sock puppetting was a thing. I never used multiple accounts to pose as multiple people in any dispute I've ever had, which there were only a handful of disputes in the 4-5 years I've edited on wikipedia. In the case of the David Carr article, the last edit I made with Edday1051 on that article was years ago. Specifically a 2013 edit, which was actually a legit edit regarding his free agent status. Prior to that, admittedly, I have made troll edits on that article, the last one which was in 2011. All of the recent edits on that article were made by my secondary account manning954, which were all made in good faith. I mean considering the current article has the draft bust information included, which is how this whole thing started shows that they were made in good faith. Apparently, if I make those same edits, it is considered "trolling" and "disruptive." One of you other users make the same edits and it is perfectly fine. This is what frustrated me about that whole thing and caused me to engage in those constant reverts. It just seemed ridiculous that adding something as pertinent as noting "David Carr is considered to be a draft bust" in the intro was considered to be so highly controversial that people kept reverting those edits. Especially when juxtaposed to the "super bowl ring as a backup," which is indisputably far less relevant and was continuously added to the intro with absolutely no dispute at all.
Apparently, if you make edits that contain information that is even remotely negative, it is considered "disruptive," which is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral, but that in no way means that information that doesn't portray the subject of the article in a good light should be prohibited. Knowing that these were "contentious" edits, I would use my secondary accounts to deal with those edits, as I didn't want to deal with that with my main account, but never was it my intention to make it look like I was multiple users, evidenced by the fact that I never used my other accounts to sway a dispute by adding a comment to back another account. And also, you could of just asked if that was my other account. There was no need to go all sherlock holmes on this lmao. I would have admitted that on the spot. I have never tried to hide that fact. If I knew you couldn't have multiple accounts, I wouldn't have done it and or at the very least, I would have made a note of it. I thought all these accounts were logged to a single IP address, so all this time I've used those separate accounts, I've never had an issue, so I never for a second thought having multiple accounts was against the rules. All in all, no hard feelings here. It is what it is and I just wanted to let you know my side of the story. Budden30 (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the reason I considered and warned you for disruptive editing was the fact that you would revert edits removing the information without talking on the article talk page, nor the project talk page. You just reverted and reverted and accused and coped a major attitude when someone didn't agree with you. That was the disruptive parts. Had you followed guidelines and gained consensus, it would've been a much more pleasant discussion for all involved, but you didn't. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 11:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It wasn't "making edits containing information that was remotely disruptive" but rather your insistence that you and you alone were right, relying on a phantom "consensus" to justify your persistence. Further, sock puppet issues aside, since you are now continuing to edit within the 72 period of your edit warring block, I expect this new account will be blocked again. JohnInDC (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Crash, we've gone over this a million times. I have in the past, edited in Carr's draft legacy into the intro. It has been removed a number of times consistently. Where were you to revert those removals and call for "consensus." Oh right, that only applies to me and my edits. It doesn't apply to anyone else who has removed information from the intro. And John, for the time being, there was a consensus. Me and Lizard agreed that we should either include or remove both pieces of information from the intro. Crash could not refute my argument for the inclusion of the draft legacy in the intro, particularly in the presense of the far less relevant "winning a super bowl ring as a backup" in there in the intro....then he threw a hissy fit and left the discussion. You can see that on manning954 talk page and the NFL wikiprojects talk page. You can also see that it was discussed on this article's talk page as well and again, Crash could not refute what I said and failed to respond. It seemed that was the "okay" to go ahead and include the draft legacy in the intro and so I did. Then here comes UW Dawgs like a white knight out of thin air to go ahead and revert my edit and the shitshow began. I get banned for "sock puppetting" and at the end of the day, the draft legacy gets included in the intro. So we end up doing exactly what I proposed with my first edit that started this whole saga off. Go on and continue this myth that this was about "my insistence about being right" or about "not communicating on talk pages." That is comically false. Budden30 (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it's not whether or not I could refute you, but the fact I refused to. I got sick and tired of dealing with your behavior. Also, no it didn't involve just your edits. I started a discussion about the edits, you never got involved but kept on with your edits, which I viewed as being disruptive and reported you. I stopped responding because no matter what I said, you would piss and moan. Now, drop this, you're gonna get blocked again. As I said, put it or don't, I don't give a damn anymore. Oh and don't lie saying you "didn't even know sock puppetting was a thing." (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 12:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Crash, I'm the one that has the attitude? Let's see where this all started. You reverted my edit of removing the Super bowl information, which I still maintain doesn't belong in the intro due to it's lack of relevancy. I wrote this on manning954 talk page:

What is your deal? I removed minor information that doesn't belong in the intro. I had information regarding his draft bust status removed and that is far more relevant to David Carr's football career than the fact that he won a super bowl ring as a backup QB on the Giants. How is that relevant enough for the intro? Especially considering he didn't play a single snap that season. He literally didn't play a single snap, you can look it up. Not even a single garbage time snap. Manning954 (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems like I was pretty cordial there. Then you respond with:

You see it's simple, everyone on a teams roster gets a Super Bowl ring, no matter if they played a single snap or zero. They were on a Super Bowl winning team, therefore, they are Super Bowl champions. Just like how equipment managers, trainers, etc. get rings also. And the regarding the draft bust information, a) you were told multiple times why it was removed, b) you were told also how and where to include it to make it work and c) you've been a bit of a jerk, not responding, etc. So, now maybe you'll get it through your skull that things aren't done the way you want them to be done, but a certain, proper way. CrashUnderride 12:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh right it's so simple. EVERYONE gets a ring. I can just feel the attitude and sass coming out of your fingers as you type that. Oh everyone gets a ring. Oh I had no idea. I mean jesus christ, you explained that to me like I started watching the NFL a week ago like JohnInDC......I'm just kidding John. Regardless of the sassy way you said it, it's not even a valid argument. That doesn't refute the fact that he's a backup QB and that mentioning super bowl rings in the intro is not standard. There are starting players that don't have information pertaining to Super Bowls won in their intros. Despite that, I was willing to compromise and said the super bowl information can be left in the intro AS LONG as the draft bust legacy is included in the intro as well. Seems like a pretty fair compromise there, but not to you guys who wanted to get into a dick measuring contest. I added the draft bust legacy in there, which is FAR more relevant information pertaining to David Carr and then you guys took the express train to revert city. Apparently, it is perfectly fine for you guys to revert and remove perfectly relevant and well sourced information from the intro. I do it and WW3 starts. Budden30 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Is sock puppetting a common thing people know about? Sorry man, I don't read all the rules and regulations of wikipedia like you wiki experts. I maintained and edited with three different account for years. Why would I continue to do that if I knew I could get banned from that considering I've used all three accounts from the same computer and IP address? Secondly, you refused to respond because you had nothing to respond with. You could not possibly refute the fact that David carr's draft bust legacy is FAR more relevant than him winning a Super Bowl ring as a back up QB. This is indisputable. Not even Johnny Cochran would have argued against that. Don't get it twisted man, you left the discussion because you nothing to respond with. And when you leave an argument, you concede. It's really simple right? Never got involved? There's three talk pages: The NFL wikiproject talk page, Manning953 talk page, and this talk page here where we have directly discussed this issue. What the hell are you talking about? I love how you have nothing to refute my claims, so you just resort to threats of bans. That is your only weapon here. You're pathetic. Budden30 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Now, if we were talking about Ryan Leaf, sure include, after all, he only played, how many years? Or Jamarcus Russell for the same reason. But Carr's had a decent career, nothing stellar. But was around for what, 14 years? Maybe include the bust info as long as it's not worded so harshly, like "one of the biggest busts of all-time", blah, blah, blah. See my point, the way you've worded time after time sounds like it's trying to negate a career that spanned more than a decade, something most busts don't do. I mean, let's be honest, they just don't, but he did. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 14:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah no shit man. Leaf and Russell are arguably the top 2 biggest busts in NFL history. Those guys were just complete flame outs. Calling them one of the biggest busts would be an understatement. No doubt they are well above Carr in the bust rankings, but you make it sound like Carr isn't worthy of being called a bust. When you compile all the top draft picks, especially number one overall picks and quarterbacks in particular who are scrutinized even more due to the position and worth to a franchise, Carr is easily one of the "biggest" draft busts in NFL history. You keep getting caught up in these petty words and descriptions as if they are personal attacks. These are the facts and numerous rankings have Carr as one of the "top" or "biggest" draft busts. The sources/citations are listed and there are numerous others you can google. You act as if I just made this up out of thin air. Carr was in the NFL for 11 seasons. 6 of those seasons were as a backup QB. You are a number one overall pick and you spend more than half your career as a backup. That alone makes you one of the biggest busts. And that's at quarterback where he's holding a clipboard. At least if you are a backup running back, wide receiver, or linebacker, etc, you are at least getting playing time rotating in...a la Reggie Bush. He was horrible in Houston, granted he had a horrible line, but guess what, good quarterbacks especially ones worthy of a number one overall pick will make it work and make everyone around them better. Get the ball out quicker and/or evade the rush. Guys like Aaron Rodgers and Roethlisberger have had mediocre lines their whole careers and they are two of the most sacked quarterbacks...and yet they are two of the most successful QBs in recent history. You can talk about how bad the line was in Houston, but what did Carr do once he left Houston? Oh right, he held a clipboard for the rest of his career. It's just puzzling to me that any of you finds this controversial. I've never met any one that follows the NFL that thought David Carr was anything but a major bust. Budden30 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

List of scandals with "-gate" suffix reversion[edit]

I re-added my change with citations (the same three as in the main article) as instructed on my talk page. What did I do wrong to get it reverted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.37.66 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I self reverted my edit (restored your edit) as the term is cited on the linked article. Defer to other editors if they see fit to alter the text, etc. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User:UW Dawgs may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

I am not the original author of the content on User:UW Dawgs which User:Toddst1 has removed by (necessarily) blanking the page, causing it to revert to its initial state (four apostropes).

Special:Contributions/64.134.17.53 created that content in 2014 and Toddst1 removed it, today. I have twice restored that content to the page, in 2015 and again today.

The WP:USERPAGE guideline says, "This guideline in a nutshell: User pages are for communication and collaboration. While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium. They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." Obviously, the authoring IP was communicating a pointed message.

And the WP:NOBAN section therein says "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask." Toddst1 blanked the page (necessarily) to remove that content without discussion. They are welcome to follow WP:USERTALKBLOG which provides a method to request removal of content from another editor's User pages, though it also states anyone can remove inappropriate content but provides no definition or link to assist anyone in making that determination.

So does that content fail WP:UPNOT ("What may I not have in my user pages?") in any way?

And how specifically would the WP:G3 policy even apply, wrt to its only listed criteria of misinformation, hoaxes, and redirects?

And I do explicitly WP:AGF. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, G3 covers "vandalism" as well, and such comments usually are vandalism. May want to put a notice on User:UW Dawgs/Editnotice that it ain't vandalism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
How exactly is that nonsense appropriate for a user page? Toddst1 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
What is the "nonsense" criteria within WP:G3? UW Dawgs (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
G3 says, in full, "This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax." As I asked above, what is the misinformation, hoax, or redirect within that text? UW Dawgs (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:UW Dawgs: You smell like poo!. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

McElhenny[edit]

Not sure how much you're into content creation, but I'll be working on Hugh McElhenny over the next ~week as part of my campaign to get Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) to good topic status. And since I only just realized what the "UW" in your name stands for, maybe you'd be interested in pitching in. Looks like he's the only Husky in the Pro and College halls of fame, and he had some pretty crazy stats for his time period. Like a 296-yard, five-touchdown game against Wazzu in 1950. Lizard (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see above that you have much more important matters to attend to. Lizard (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, :) The story goes that Hugh took a pay cut to play for the 49ers. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, he really did get benefits from the university. I was expecting it to be unfounded rumors. Still a great player though. I'm wondering where to place this in the article. Lizard (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Louisiana–Lafayette[edit]

I have a feeling that we'll be dealing with these kind of edits for months to come... I saw your comment on their page, but I don't think it'll do any good! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I was kinda hoping he finally dropped the stick. Guess I should've known better. Lizard (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard: He is a user "that never ends"... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
So eager to push his agenda he doesn't even bother to spellcheck. I'm just an evil LSU fan though, so what do I know. Lizard (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ragin Cajuns[edit]

My edits of today are not edit warring, or in violation of the 'consensus.' If it is already established that the team being mentioned is the Cajuns, there is no need to include 'Louisiana-Lafayette' again. 'Louisiana-Lafayette' does not HAVE to be included in EACH and EVERY mention of the school.Pncomeaux (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We will carve our name in the Hall of Fame[edit]

Looks like the gold with the purple stripes down the sleeves was the look for well over a decade (1910s to 1920s). Here is a good action shot c. 1919, and here is a team picture. Look the same in 1915 and in 1922. The date with Stanford starts to loom large this year. Cake (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Lizard is putting in work on Hugh McElhenny. Is the blue on his trading card what you had in mind? Cake (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Missed Lizard's above comment. What got you interested in Julius Evola? He and Oswald Spengler would be on a shortlist of favorite writers for me. Cake (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Botched WP:3O as seen on Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 1#Article picture. Don't claim any knowlege of the person or situation, just noticed they were missing an obvious resolution. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

See also[edit]

UW Dawgs, I see you've been rather active adding "See also" items to various college football articles. It redundant, poor style to list links articles in a a see also section, when such articles are already linked in the body or in the navboxes of the subject article. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, consensus is not put win rivalry game wins as "championships" in the infobox of season articles. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
As this is/was long-standing content (in both the original decade articles and the handful of original single-season articles) which you have repeatedly removed, project citation? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed before at WT:CFB. It's somewhere in the archives. Winning a rivalry game is not a championship, so it was never appropriate for inclusion the championship field of the infobox. A handful of Pac-10 articles had included rivalry wins in the infoboxes, but they were the anomaly. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
As this is your stated rationale, please do find and link -I could not locate. Thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 17#Rivalry game "championships". Jweiss11 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Pncomeaux[edit]

Yeah, they're a problem. I left them a very polite message:

Here's the deal about the situation with Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football. The way it works is this, we when talking about a sports team in the article we don't refer to the teams by the team name, but rather the city Dallas Cowboys as Dallas or school so the Ragin' Cajuns as Louisiana–Lafayette. Go look at all the Good Article status articles, see that they aren't mentioned as Cowboys or Rajin' Cajuns, or whatever the name may be. I feel that you need to refrain from these types of edits and discuss them in a calm and rational manner lest you be blocked for edit warring. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 00:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And they replied by just removing it from their talk page without saying anything else. Childish reaction to very polite message. I've seen this behavior before. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 00:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

1908 Colorado Silver and Gold football team listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1908 Colorado Silver and Gold football team. Since you had some involvement with the 1908 Colorado Silver and Gold football team redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

College football standings templates[edit]

UW Dawgs, thanks for you work of late. You've probably notice that I've reverted a bunch of your edits to college football standings templates, e.g. Template:2016 Mountain West Conference football standings. The first argument of Template:CFB Standings Start (a sub-template within) must have value that is the same as the name of the standings template. Otherwise those V, T, E links malfunction. There may be a better solution here that entails editing the code of Template:CFB Standings Start so that it automatically pulls the the standings template name to drive those links. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, forgot about the V/T/E issue. Will make another pass at these to standardize within the parent Cat(s). No opinion on strict adherence to formal/longer vs infornal/short name strings, but wrapping/legibility is a concern and the full conf name is displayed within the infobox immediately above the standings template in most cases. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy[edit]

You removed this because?
Newsweek reported that 22 million e-mails, including critical ones making decisions to enter into the Iraq War, were allegedly "lost" from the administration of George W. Bush[1]
Different source, statement and perspective. 7&6=thirteen () 17:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Burleigh, Nina (September 12, 2016). "U.S.: The George W. Bush White House ‘Lost” 22 Million E-mails". Newsweek. Retrieved September 13, 2016. 

Kudos[edit]

Kudos for your work this week in building out season articles for Colorado and Utah. That's a lot of work in a short time. Any interest in doing the same for UW's Apple Cup rival on the east side of the state? Or maybe the Sun Devils? Those two programs are probably in the sorest need of work among the Pac-12 programs. Cbl62 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, intent was to focus on Pac-12 across multiple article types since they leverage similar templates. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1982 Utah Utes football team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 1982 college football season
1983 Utah Utes football team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 1983 college football season
1984 Utah Utes football team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 1984 college football season

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

3rd opinion[edit]

I am sorry to tell you that I have declined your dispute at University of Louisiana-Lafayette because 3 editors are involved. Please consider WP:RFC as an alternative. Thank you. Joel.Miles925 17:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic dating on college football standings template[edit]

"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I am so grateful for your edits to add dynamic dating to the college football standings templates. I have been waging this battle for years to remind editors to update the date when updating the template. Thank you so much! OCNative (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Welcome, as I too bashed my head on that particular rock! At the end of the season we should blank or hard code the date for future edits re team links, forfeits, and such to avoid the dating being odd. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS into List of NCAA college football rankings. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Some enlightenment[edit]

In case you were wondering if some people had a misunderstanding of what constitutes "rivalries," I present to you this IP, which I suspect is the same as this IP and is probably User:Brownsfan677. Lizard (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, UW Dawgs. You have new messages at talk:Big 12 Conference.
Message added 02:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dcheagletalkcontribs 02:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Michael Bennett (disambiguation) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. LittleWink (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And now I'm laughing at the thought of how many people typed in "Michael Bennett" expecting the football player and instead seeing this guy. Lizard (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I cleaned the inbound links to Michael Bennett as part of the original move and a significant number were wrong (there are ~10 Michael Bennett (xxx)" articles, so wrong across multiple genres). It was reverted for semi-reasonable procedural reasons, but is now is listed as a formal move request on the Talk. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It's admirable the amount of work you put into your initial arguments on RMs, AfDs and such. If it were me I woulda just pointed out that the defensive lineman's page views destroyed the current primary topic and called it a day. Lizard (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg For your hard work, you deserve this cup of coffee! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Geaux Dogs[edit]

Impressive showing against Stanford. With USC and Oregon having down years looks like the Huskies are carrying the Pac-12's torch this season. I've had mad respect for Washington fans ever since you guys packed Tiger Stadium a few years ago. I was floored by how many made the trip, and weren't intimidated at all. Really nice people as well. I'm just glad we're not playing each other this year. Lizard (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Chris Petersen is a great coach, but watch out for Utah. Cake (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@MisterCake: I think I'll stick with my bet. Lizard (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

California football years redirects[edit]

Hi UW Dawgs, thanks for your continuos edits on the Golden Bears football article (especially with the recent changing the university links to football team links). I wanted to talk to you about the year redirects which (I think) you created. Previously the non-existed articles where in red in the navbox which made it very clear that there was no article for that year, now they appear in blue indicating that there is an article, but the link takes you back to the page. When I am editing articles this often indicates that there is an issue. Would you consider us taking out the redirects for that reason? Rybkovich (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of 1922 Washington State Cougars football team for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1922 Washington State Cougars football team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1922 Washington State Cougars football team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eric S.V. (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Early Arizona teams[edit]

I note you are moving the early teams to reflect "Varsity" as the nickname. This seems odd. Pretty much every team in those days had a freshman team and a "varsity" team. But those weren't official nicknames, but rather mere statements of descriptive fact. Do you have any sources showing the UA used "varsity" as an official team nickname? Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict. See your Talk, its the official nickname, not a Fresh/JV/V type callout. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI, 1914 forward is "Arizona Wildcats," 1913 and prior is "Arizona Varsity" (as a nickname, not a V vs JV callout. This is supported in RS, including here. So I have moved associated articles and updated text. Hope that context helps. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that an article from the student newspaper written years after the fact is really a reliable source. Seems more likely that "varsity" was a descriptive term, much as it was for virtually every other football team in this era. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Having now done some research, I don't find any contemporaneous references suggesting that the 1899 team had an official nickname of Varsity. Moreover, a 1938 history of the early years, found here, is consistent with the notion that there was no official nickname and that the "varsity" (lower case) is a descriptive term rather than an official nickname "The first varsity squad of Wildcats, not so nicknamed for many years to come . . ." Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

College football records templates[edit]

UW Dawgs, I see you are creating a series of "college football records" templates. I think we need to put a little more thought into these before we churn them out. First, starting no later than 1892, we have conference standings templates, so these should indicate "independent" in some way. Second, these templates are going to get very long in the 1890s and early 1900s, as there were 100+ teams, I believe, competing with no classification as independents in some of those years. Perhaps, these should be broken up regionally? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Context was ensuring "Independent" templates for all modern Pac-12 schools (their early-year articles). I followed the existing 18xx Cats and naming conventions during this process, which is now complete to my immediate end of support for Pac-12 schools. So the problem may be larger now with the new standings templates, which can be moved/renamed and given different Cats as appropriate, but the issues aren't new per se. Will post a note to the CFB Proj. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Category names for major US cities[edit]

Please note that, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities, te category names ffor several US cities, including Boston, no longer include the state name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, UW Dawgs. You have new messages at Talk:Washington Huskies women's volleyball.
Message added 15:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MRD2014 (talkcontribs) 15:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

D'n'S This is my first note on a talkback page but here goes. I made three (3) separate changes to the Dark 'N' Stormy article. First at 1329 was more structural but I did rewrite the part using the NYT article as reference. The original author cited a NYT article but mischaracterized what they wrote. Please verify but I think this should be kept. The 2nd change (1333) was adding unverified info I know to be true but I can't cite now so I will find the source and do so. the third (1334) was adding the gosling website to the external links section. I suspect that is its own source. Please keep.

Reference errors on 15 November[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) 00:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Division I FBS independents football standings[edit]

the total size of the transcluded templates is too large. usually when this happens, the solution is to split it into subpages (e.g., 1869-1960 and 1961-present). Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, UW Dawgs. 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)

1894 and 1895 college football independents records[edit]

Hi, I closed these discussion as merge. Could you or Jweiss11 do the merging? If you need my help, let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Montana Grizzlies football seasons[edit]

I see that the List of Montana Grizzlies football seasons is under construction, but I added a talk page with class=list, and removed the stub tag at the bottom of the article. Thank you for your excellent and extensive work on college football.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Vote on removing/keeping CFDW[edit]

Talk:College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS#Remove_College_Football_Data_Warehouse_section Dolenath (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mountain States Conference standings[edit]

UW Dawgs, I see you started a bunch of the Mountain States Conference standings templates. This website has the full standings for reference if you want to flesh them out. The conference is listed there as "Skyline" from 1948 onward. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

College football standings templates[edit]

UW Dawgs, when you create new standings templates, watch out that you don't reverse the overall and conference record columns. Also, there's no need to put {{PAGENAME}} as a category sort key. I think a few years back it was needed otherwise templates would default sort under T, but it's a latency now. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe Award[edit]

Thanks for this, but it's kinda defeating my intention. The vast majority of our awards pages suffer from a lack of independent sources establishing their notability. Verifiability really isn't the issue. Lizard (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Tag with Template:Better source? I came across it in context to dubious edits to USC which I verified, so my edits to JTA were just filling in the gaps by year. Understood/agreed re primary source. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
What would be an appropriate top-of-the-page tag? Inline tags aren't really helpful, since there often aren't any citations at all (see Lombardi Award). Lizard (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a good top-of-page tag Template:Refimprove, if I understand your point. I'd still tag w/Bette Source behind year cite as I though you were looking for a year-specific and 3rd party citation. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:Refexample was created just recently. Seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. Actually, maybe not. Lizard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1943 college football independents records[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:1943 college football independents records has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GXXF TC 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about 1947 Washington State Cougars football team[edit]

Hello, UW Dawgs,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 1947 Washington State Cougars football team should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1947 Washington State Cougars football team .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, scope_creep (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about 1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team[edit]

Hello, UW Dawgs,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, scope_creep (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Restoring Southern Conference (charter members) / SIAA standings[edit]

@UW Dawgs:, could you restore or help restore Clemson Military College / University in the Southern Conference standings (especially since they were charter members) and in the SIAA standings on individual team pages for all years they were removed (they were never Independents with Montana and South Carolina). Previous editors already had it correct, and I also verified it with their sports information office. I am only asking because I am not sure exactly how you changed the templates or if you used WP:HC to do it globally somehow (not familiar with that program), or if it has to be fixed page for page. Thanks bud. SportsEdits1 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. I restored what I could (had to reverse edit a few to restore some templates), and added back some citations. Standings are still incomplete on some pages. Did what I could. Happy Holidays, UW. SportsEdits1 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
While certainly possible, the core issues of WP:V and WP:RS are in play throughout these articles. They are/were poorly sourced at best. Your good-faith discussion with the athletic department is appreciated, but RS are required. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Panthers Seahawks rivalry[edit]

Please look at talk page of the page referenced above Newyorksports38 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

SCIAC Standings[edit]

Apparently you provided a document for the SCIAC to Jweiss11(http://static.psbin.com/5/m/x5k85yxyitg1pi/SCIACStandings.pdf). It seems like a good reference, but not sure about its overall accuracy. For example, it shows San Diego State and La Verne NOT in the conference in 1926. I've found that information to be incorrect via several sources from that timeframe: Multiple articles in the 1926 San Diego Union and the 1926 LA Times, The San Diego State Yearbook from 1927. I've updated the SCIAC standings for 1926 accordingly. Ocfootballknut (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Score format in season article schedule tables[edit]

There's currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Score format in seasons article schedule tables that you may be interested in. Kobra98 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Hello, I noticed you undid my edits for North Carolina Tar heels football. Those edits include more updated and detailed information, so I restored it. If any mistakes were made in those edits, please help in correcting them, otherwise, please don't undo again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.131.27 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi UW Dawgs, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sam Walton (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You're invited...[edit]

Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tags[edit]

Hi there. Acting on your report, I warned Chisme a few hours ago about making sure to provide sources for their additions. However, I think it's worth noting that you are being far too liberal with your use of templates warnings and maintenance templates. You should not typically use a templated warning with an experienced user, as it's not very polite. Similarly, if you have issues with content that has just been added to an article by an active editor, it is not terribly helpful to shove a template into it; much better to use the talk page, and explain your issues in detail. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

About this article section at the USC Football Trojans article, I appreciate your finding a source instead of just tagging it. I really do appreciate that. I think rather than tags things, the first option should be to try to fix them, as you did in this instance. If I removed that template I did so because I got the impression that some of your templates were inserted arbitrarily. If my impression was wrong, I apologize. Chisme (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

elite 11[edit]

hey bud, discuss on elite 11 talk pageEdday1051 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Edday1051 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mountain West Conference athletic director navbox[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Mountain West Conference athletic director navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

you got issues dude[edit]

why are you reverting my updates to the infoboxes? Where are the contradictions? The data is straight from the updated rosters on the team websites. User:Yankees10 has reverted your edits. Edday1051 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Yankees10 corrected your edits (review the diffs) and I already thanked him. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
oh crap, you're right, which one is the updated page? If you go on his profile page on the official udub football website, Browning's weight is listed at 205. Isn't the 209 weight from last year's profile? Edday1051 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
lmao, no he did revert your edit. I'm all confused over here. I had it right all along. He reverted you dude. Get it straightEdday1051 (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
seriously man, what is your problem. You reek of desperation. Yankees10 reverted your edits. Check the diffs. You are causing disruption and it is in your best interest to stop doing so because it can lead to you being blocked. Edday1051 (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Maybe you should consider following the very guidelines you cite before engaging in combative editing. You and I know you are only doing this because you have some weird obsession with me and your actions are nothing but provocation. Edday1051 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Grey_Jackal[edit]

He's a sock of a perma-blocked user. See here. If he continues to be disruptive, he's blockable. JohnInDC (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It seemed only a matter of time before he'd begin with the questionable edits. I haven't been following him other than through your comments on his Talk page, and if you think that following him around and double-checking his edits is beginning to take up too much of your (or anyone's) time, you can drop a note to Bagumba at the link above - JohnInDC (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hm. Not accusing, just sayin'. Bears watching. JohnInDC (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1906–07 in American college basketball[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1906–07 in American college basketball requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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. AusLondonder (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1907–08 in American college basketball[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1907–08 in American college basketball requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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. AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

1933 Washington State Cougars football team[edit]

Proposed deletion of 1933 Washington State Cougars football team[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article 1933 Washington State Cougars football team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While the subject is notable, the content in this article appears to have been copied wholesale from the 2016 WU Cougars Program, a copyrighted work. No value is added to WP by replication of this data into this article, beyond a simple link to the source document. There is no content in this article beyond what is in the 2016 WU Cougars Program.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)