Jump to content

Talk:Oklahoma State Cowboys football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The image File:Osu ath brand.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most moronic ommission

[edit]

So they're the Aggies or the Cowboys? Looks like they changed their team name. WHEN???!!! How the hell can you leave something like that out of the article? 98.82.93.3 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oklahoma State Cowboys football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed

[edit]
  • The "Allegations of misconduct by Sports Illustrated" section dates to September 2014 [1] from Special:Contributions/24.248.243.102
  • Ok St particulars aside, almost every FBS football program has violations NCAA.org shows 300 Major Violations in Div-I football
  • 8 paragraphs against 120 years of football is WP:UNDUE

So the existing section should be pruned, possibly with the full content merged into a standalone article. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the necropost, but quite frankly the section simply doesn't belong here at all. Oklahoma State was cleared of these allegations more than a decade ago. So even if we were to talk about violations, this would not be relevant as the accusations were never supported by any evidence. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, this is a well-sourced and well-written section about allegations. glman (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of disagree on wholly removing the section and I don't think there is enough there to warrant a standalone article, it could use more of a rewrite more then anything and being merged within the history section.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly warrants the existence of the section? Whether you think it's well written or not is irrelevant. The allegations were never substantiated, thus nothing happened of substance. Why are we including sections about things that never happened? Wikipedia isn't the place for things like that. It's not important to the overall profile of the program nor its history. By all means, make a case for its relevance. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note you are lumping glman's reply in with mine. While yes nothing relevant came out of it besides the non-related infractions it still happened, SI still accused OSU of misconduct which was still investigated by the NCAA and found to be largely BS. Yes the section needs to be shortened and rewritten to be less of a hit piece but its still part of OSU football history.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, yes. Allegations being disproven does not mean the fact of those allegations being made isn't itself notable. AntiDionysius (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what it means. Why does it even need to be there? What does it tell you about the program? That they had allegations made against them that were never substantiated? Should every college football program have a running list of allegations made against them on their Wiki pages whether supported or not? That's just not a very efficient use of the page. 161.31.8.20 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those allegations were the subject of a reasonable amount of coverage in media then yes, absolutely. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't. That's the point. It was alleged in one article, an investigation found no wrongdoing, and then it was dropped. Why are you engaging in this if you're not even looking into the topic for yourself? I honestly do not see what you're getting out of this. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very much WP:UNDUE to include this story at all, let alone to be given an entire section. Frankly, it says more about Sports Illustrated that they published this story without any evidence than it says about OSU. I would urge editors to consider: what does including this section tell you about the program? The lay reader would look at the headline and infer that OSU is a dirty program even though we know the allegations were bogus. Why then should they be represented on this page? If anything, this should go on the page for Sports Illustrated since they're the ones responsible in this case. 161.31.8.20 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely disagree. It was covered by multiple sources and was a notable situation, and we are not concerned with shaping the narrative. We share notable events. This section is well-written and clearly includes the final findings from the NCAA. glman (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are shaping the narrative by including it. It's not a notable event. It flamed out less than a year after the story was published. Why does some artificially constructed story deserve a spot in this page? This very much meets criteria for WP:UNDUE, especially seeing as the investigation itself actively avoided reporting any viewpoints by active players that contradicted the allegations. Neutral point of view cannot be maintained by including this section in this page. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this section should be removed Ethan.S (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Champ. Section

[edit]
Blocked sock Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I feel that certain users are struggling to remember that Wikipedia is a tool used for quick information for a casual reader. Separating the tables makes it very clear and obvious that each section is talking about the 2011 unclaimed season and the 1945 claimed season. There is no reason to combine both seasons together when they were nothing alike, rather than briefly explain both in their own individual paragraph. Combining looks extremely sloppy, not to mention the grammatical errors in the text. In addition, the mention of the Blue Ribbon commission is entirely unnecessary. The section is about national titles awarded, and the details of each can be conveniently found in the links attached to the section. It’s short and sweet and informative and gives the reader all the information needed, with the inclusion of the links, rather than spiderwebbing off into talking about a “Blue Ribbon Commission” when the section is simply about national titles. Dugout10 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the Oklahoma football wikipedia page completely separates claimed and unclaimed titles. There is absolutely no reason to push them together when one is claimed and one is unclaimed. They are nothing alike.
My edits do a perfect job of mentioning the national champion selector and a quick summary of the season that Oklahoma State had to get them that title selection, and to very clearly mention if the title was claimed or unclaimed. That’s all it needs to be, no reason to mash it all together. Dugout10 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow can't even attempt to not make it look like your not a sockpuppet, hello Dylan Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of misconduct section

[edit]

This section serves absolutely no purpose within this page. Oklahoma State was cleared of any wrongdoing more than a decade ago (see the link below). At best, this section is entirely irrelevant. At worst, it borders on libelous. If you want to undo its removal, give a valid reason why. Don't just call the edit not constructive. Prove why it belongs here. Otherwise, leave it out.

https://footballscoop.com/news/ncaa-third-party-enforcement-group-clear-oklahoma-state-wrongdoing-following-sports-illustrated-investigation 12.76.10.90 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred section for National Championship

[edit]
Blocked sock Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, if anyone would like to voice their opinion on the matter, please compare the current National Championship section to @Dcheagle’s proposed National Championship section, and express which one you personally prefer.

We seem to be disagreeing about which version gives information that’s most important, and whether or not claimed or unclaimed titles should be seperate or kept together in one paragraph. Thanks for the help, and once a consensus is reached I’ll be glad to allow said section to remain and I hope @Dcheagle does the same. Riptide10 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the versions below, by all means discuss away. The first version of the section is what it looked like before I edited the section following a rewrite by a now blocked sockpuppet. My edits which evolved into what my current version looks like simplified the section, combined multiple paragraphs, added relevant sourced information removed undo weight to a unclaimed title without removing relevant information and placed more relevance to the claimed 1945 title and combined two tables into one making a neat and tidy section. The Current version as of now is a rehash with a few minor changes as to what the section looked like before my first edit to the section.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 10:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that Riptide10 and all previous sockpuppets want to remove any mention of the process by which the AFCA made its 1945 selection, and in particular, the cited reference to the Daily Oklahoman. The user seems to want to hide the fact that the AFCA process required the university to apply for consideration to a three-person committee. The version that was said to be "by" Dcheagle had already existed in the article before Riptide10 and previous sockpuppets began this crusade. The version by Dcheagle should be retained. Jeff in CA (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to “The Daily Oklahoman” is an opinion article written by Barry Tramel that is factually inaccurate in multiple ways. I’m not sure why anyone would want to use a factually inaccurate opinion article as a “source”, when plenty of non biased sources exist. Riptide10 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, one of the members of the AFCA stated in an interview that determining a champion took over two years, claiming that OSU simply applied for a title and was handed one is extremely ignorant and disingenuous. Riptide10 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve essentially got 2 people who are trying to push a factually inaccurate opinion article, along with numerous spelling and grammatical errors, removing information about the 2011 season for seemingly no reason, and combining claimed and unclaimed titles when no other college football wiki page does. Fascinating. Riptide10 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The provided source is not factually inaccurate, your edit removes all mentions of the blue ribbon committee who did the work determining whether OSU was deserving of a national championship for that year 'your' edit is the one that makes it seem that AFCA just decided to hand OSU a national championship for a year that everyone considered Army the only national champion till that day in October 2016. You want to ignore the fact that OSU did in fact apply for it, your edits are ignoring the facts in this matter. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually inaccurate. It claims Oklahoma State was the only school to be awarded a retroactive championship from the AFCA, when SMU, TCU, and Texas A&M all applied for titles as well. It is inaccurate, plain and simple.
For your next argument, the section is labeled “National championships” not “The process of the Blue Ribbon Commission”. There is information about the Blue Ribbon commission on the AFCA wikipedia page, but for a section labeled “National championships” my edit works exceptionally well at giving a quick, accurate description of the selector, and the season at hand. Army is completely irrelevant to Oklahoma State’s national title, you bringing them up shows your bias. Riptide10 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't not make it factually inaccurate, at the time that Oklahoma State was awarded the retroactive championship SMU, TCU and Texas A&M had yet to be awarded retroactive championships, your work doesn't not give an accurate description of the selector it omits the fact that the championship was awarded in an extra ordinary way and makes it look like the AFCA just said "here you go your champions now". Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s no longer factually accurate. It’s an opinion article that is now inaccurate. By the way, when has the coaches trophy EVER been awarded by historians, like the article claimed to have an issue with? The entire article is super biased and ignorant when you pick it apart.
Like I said, if people are interested in the details of the championship, they’re 100% free to go to the AFCA wiki page to view details of the commission. Texas A&M also claimed multiple titles retroactively, yet the national title section on the Texas A&M wiki page is appropriately simplified down to the season and the selector. The same goes for TCU. There’s no reason for OSU to be different. Riptide10 (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its still accurate as the other schools were already champions for those giving seasons OSU was not, the fact remains that OSU applied for consideration by the Blue ribbon as did TCU for their two already claimed titles. As for how the other articles list their info, other stuff exists written an many forms. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. His complains in the *opinion* article consist of Oklahoma State being the only school to apply for an AFCA championship, which is now completely untrue, and that “coaches, not historians” crowned OSU champs, when historians have *never* crowned a Coaches Poll national champion. The article is biased, inaccurate and not well written.
And sure it does, it just shows that the way I wrote it is infinitely more popular and well received than whatever method you attempted to do. Riptide10 (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the fact that you are yet again abusing multi-able user accounts to evade your blocking for this very reason, at this point its clear your WP:NOTHERE to be constructive an only intend to push your view point of events and ignore sources that don't agree with your views. I'm no longer going to continue this back an forth game with you as I have better things to like actually improving articles. I look forward to your next sockpuppet attempt. Have a nice day. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there’s no real reason to keep messaging me. We clearly disagree, just wait till other people give their opinion before arguing on behalf of easily disproven articles:) Riptide10 (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to just specify that the AFCA were the selectors for that title. How many others were selected via the same process is pretty irrelevant to this page. 161.31.8.20 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would most support a table for only the 1945 selection/claim, plus text (and not a table) under it briefly describing the 2011 selection.
The Daily Oklahoma article can/should be cited, along with any other reliable source citations describing the circumstances of the claim. A brief description of the 2016 award should be included, but it's WP:UNDUE to go into a long diatribe about the circumstances of the claim, the makeup of the AFCA BRC members, Army's lack of award, etc. That kind of content should exist at The Coaches' Trophy#Blue Ribbon Commission, 1945 college football season, 1945 Oklahoma A&M Cowboys football team, etc. and linked to from this page.
PK-WIKI (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with @PK-WIKI. While @Dcheagle has put in a good effort with his edits, they absolutely are WP:UNDUE, and it’s hard to ignore the fact that he’s an Oklahoma Sooners fan, a rival of Oklahoma State, which is likely the reason he’s so adamant his edit should stand. I’ve edited the section to remove the 2011 table, simplified the summary for the 2011 season, and added a link to the blue ribbon commission. I think it’s a fair conclusion for all parties. WizdomT (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Riptide is a banned sockpuppet and therefore his view point is moot in this discussion. And me being a fan of OU has nothing to do with trying to improve an article that is lacking in many ways. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? I’m sure you believe you’re improving the article, but when multiple users have disagreed with you, including @PK-WIKI who has more experience with college football wiki than any of us, maybe it’s best to admit you aren’t actually improving it. WizdomT (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the colors, however. WizdomT (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that when I said it was WP:UNDUE to go in-depth on multiple arguments against their AFCA Blue Ribbon Commission claim, I did not mean to imply that no information about other teams should be included. It's clearly WP:DUE weight to state their position in the contemporary AP Poll, and Army's No. 1, as is done at many other teams' national championship sections that involve split/shared/contradictory titles: Washington Huskies football#National championships, Kentucky Wildcats football#National championships, Notre Dame Fighting Irish football#National championships, etc. We should also clearly describe the award from the AFCA via the Blue Ribbon Commission retroactive title, and not try to launder it into the equivalent of No. 1 in a contemporary Coaches Poll. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WizdomT: Why are you so against stating anything about the Blue Ribbon committee in the article?--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 09:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, the selector for the national title was the AFCA. In addition, the BRC is already linked from the page. WizdomT (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Version prior to Rewrite

National championships

[edit]

Oklahoma State has been named national champions twice by NCAA-designated major selectors. Oklahoma State claims the 1945 national championship, but does not claim the 2011 title awarded by NCAA-designated major selector Colley Matrix, who selected OSU after a 12–1 season was capped off with a win over Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl.[1]

Season Coach Selectors Record Bowl Opponent Result
2011 Mike Gundy Colley Matrix 12–1 Fiesta Bowl Stanford W 41-38


The 1945 Oklahoma A&M football team was awarded the Coaches Poll national championship by the AFCA committee (which conducts the Coaches Poll) retroactively in October 2016. The Cowboys went 9–0, and capped off the undefeated championship season with a 33–13 win over Saint Mary's in the Sugar Bowl. To date, it is the only undefeated season in Oklahoma State football history.[2][3][4]

Season Coach Selectors Record Bowl Opponent Result
1945 Jim Lookabaugh AFCA 9–0 Sugar Bowl Saint Mary's W 33–13
Latest version by Dcheagle

National championships

[edit]

Oklahoma State claims the 1945 national championship, additional Oklahoma State was selected by NCAA-designated major selector Colley Matrix in 2011.[1] In October 2016 the 1945 national championship was retroactively awarded to the 1945 Oklahoma A&M football team by the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) which conducts the Coaches Poll, the championship was awarded following an application to the AFCA'S Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate legitimate claims for pre-poll (1922 to 1949) championships.[5] The 1945 Cowboys went 9–0 and capped off the undefeated championship season with a 33–13 win over Saint Mary's in the Sugar Bowl. To date, it is the only undefeated season in Oklahoma State football history.[6][7][8]

Season Coach Selectors Record Bowl Opponent Result
1945 Jim Lookabaugh AFCA 9–0 Sugar Bowl Saint Mary's W 33–13
2011 Mike Gundy Colley Matrix 12–1 Fiesta Bowl Stanford W 41–38
Claimed national championships in bold
Latest version by Riptide10

National championships

[edit]

The 1945 Oklahoma A&M football team was awarded the Coaches Poll national championship by the AFCA committee (which conducts the Coaches Poll) retroactively in October 2016. The Cowboys went 9–0 and capped off the undefeated championship season with a 33–13 win over Saint Mary's in the Sugar Bowl. To date, it is the only undefeated season in Oklahoma State football history.[9][10][11]

Season Coach Selectors Record Bowl Opponent Result
1945 Jim Lookabaugh AFCA 9–0 Sugar Bowl Saint Mary's W 33–13 

Unclaimed national championships

Oklahoma State was also awarded a national title in 2011 by NCAA-designated major selector Colley Matrix, who selected OSU after a 12–1 season was capped off with a win over Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl. Oklahoma State does not claim this championship. [1]

Season Coach Selectors Record Bowl Opponent Result
2011 Mike Gundy Colley Matrix 12–1 Fiesta Bowl Stanford W 41–38
  1. ^ a b c 2018 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records (PDF). National Collegiate Athletic Association. August 2018. p. 111. Retrieved December 13, 2018.
  2. ^ Fleming, Thomas (October 13, 2016). "Oklahoma State 1945 Football Team Awarded National Championship by AFCA". Pistols Firing.
  3. ^ "AFCA retroactively awards its 1945 national title to Oklahoma State". CollegeFootballTalk. 2016-10-13. Retrieved 2017-12-30.
  4. ^ "AFCA Recognizes Oklahoma State as 1945 National Champion". Archived from the original on December 6, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  5. ^ Tramel, Berry (2017-08-23). "Why is Oklahoma State on an island with the retroactive titles?". Daily Oklahoman. Retrieved 2018-12-04. The AFCA did not convene a panel of historians ... Instead, the AFCA opened the process up for proposals. It invited schools to nominate teams they felt were deserving. Then a committee would vote yea or nay on said team – the AFCA acknowledged it could hand out multiple awards for the same season [from 1922 to 1949].
  6. ^ Fleming, Thomas (October 13, 2016). "Oklahoma State 1945 Football Team Awarded National Championship by AFCA". Pistols Firing.
  7. ^ "AFCA retroactively awards its 1945 national title to Oklahoma State". CollegeFootballTalk. 2016-10-13. Retrieved 2017-12-30.
  8. ^ "AFCA Recognizes Oklahoma State as 1945 National Champion". Archived from the original on December 6, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  9. ^ Fleming, Thomas (October 13, 2016). "Oklahoma State 1945 Football Team Awarded National Championship by AFCA". Pistols Firing.
  10. ^ "AFCA retroactively awards its 1945 national title to Oklahoma State". CollegeFootballTalk. 2016-10-13. Retrieved 2017-12-30.
  11. ^ "AFCA Recognizes Oklahoma State as 1945 National Champion". Archived from the original on December 6, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.

Championship

[edit]

Sad to see that there is no mention in the article about how their PR Department applied for 1945 Championship. 2600:8803:991C:5600:F58B:3476:B164:3296 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Source for my claim https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/115469/how-oklahoma-state-won-its-first-national-title-71-years-later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:991C:5600:F58B:3476:B164:3296 (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant. The AFCA asked schools for nominees and Oklahoma State was nominated. What exactly is your goal here? 161.31.8.20 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite relevant for the article to state the truth. 2600:8803:991C:5600:F58B:3476:B164:3296 (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances of how the claim was made are clearly relevant and notable, and thus should be included. As PK-WIKI stated above, “The Daily Oklahoma article can/should be cited, along with any other reliable source citations describing the circumstances of the claim.” And “We should also clearly describe the award from the AFCA via the Blue Ribbon Commission retroactive title, and not try to launder it into the equivalent of No. 1 in a contemporary Coaches Poll.”
Jeff in CA (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Oklahoman article, despite being false and misleading, is linked in the article. There is also no attempt to claim it was a Coaches Poll national title, simply that the organization that awarded it was the organization that runs the Coaches Poll. @Dcheagle switching to an alternate IP account to whine about this is hilariously embarrassing. WizdomT (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single thing in the article is false. @Dcheagle is using a sockpuppet account to continue to demand the section be changed to fit what his personal fanfare wants to see written. WizdomT (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WizdomT Unlike others I don't resort to acting like a child, I have a user account for a reason. Also reframe from resorting to Personal attacks. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don’t mean to personally attack you, I’m just suggesting not to use sock puppet accounts to continue to push your opinion. A glance at your talk page history has shown it’s been an issue before. WizdomT (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WizdomT I didn't, Unlike several other individuals who have inhabited this article as of late. I don't need to use a sock puppet, I have a user account for a reason. And you would do well to stop trying to accuse me of doing so. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies if you weren’t, however you’ve been caught doing it once already, and seeing as the messages were written consistent to your writing style, and the fact that it was an Oklahoma City IP address, and the fact that the edits were made right around when you were editing on your main account, makes it look a bit suspicious, fair? WizdomT (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-coloring of "Bowl Games" section

[edit]

Listen, I don't want to get into any of this lol, I was just perusing different bowl games that different NCAA teams were participating in and noticed this one. Because of how sensitive some topics seem to be at the moment, I just wanted to check to see if this was alright with everyone. I was thinking of just recoloring the column of the entries in the "Result" column to be green (W) or red (L). List of Boise State Broncos bowl games is a good example of what I mean. Just let me know if everyone's okay with it! Thanksss Garriefisher (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garriefisher I'm currently reworking the bowl games section, it can be found here just haven't made the update in the main space yet. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcheagle Oh beautiful! Never-mind then, thanks! Garriefisher (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dcheagle's (now Jeffrey R. Clark) edits are completely senseless.

[edit]

Dcheagle, who has since changed his screen name to Jeffrey R. Clark, has repeatedly gone against what multiple users, including PK-WIKI, agreed the information on the page should look like. In his latest vandalism of the page, he removed information about who the AFCA is, continued to push the BRC despite the BRC already being linked from the page, and then deleted massive amounts of information from OK State's unclaimed national championship season, for no apparent reason apart from him wanting to. To top it all off, multiple grammar errors are evident throughout the section.

If you think that's all of his vandalism, you'd be wrong. He also removed information about the selector of OK State's national championship, removed information about OK State's most recent conference championship, removed information about OK State's bowl record and notable bowl wins, removed individual All-American selections, and to top it all off, removed information about OK State's only Heisman Trophy winner from the page header. No reason at all was given for the removal of tons of relevant information.

The issue with Dcheagle, now Jeffrey R. Clark, is that he's shown time and time again he's not interested in collaborating with other editors, instead opting to edit the page the way he sees fit, demanding people who disagree "take it to the talk page", where he will be disagreed with by multiple editors, but still justify his unpopular, error-ridden edits because "a consensus wasn't reached" according to him.

He is an Oklahoma Sooners fan that continuously deletes information he doesn't personally like from the Oklahoma State football page, which is a pretty obvious Conflict of interest, considering the rivalry between the 2 schools, and despite his edits continuedly being unpopular, ridden with spelling and grammar errors, and oftentimes simply incorrect, he continues to edit war and refuses to collaborate with other editors.

He will respond to this message with excuses and goalpost shifting, but the fact of the matter is that Dcheagle (now Jeffrey R. Clark) is behaving completely unreasonable and is acting as though this is his personal Wikipedia page to control and maintain, and collaboration is beneath him, which is completely against what Wikipedia stands for. To give him credit, he once DID properly use the talk page to determine what structure and info of the national championship section should be kept. He was heavily outvoted and disagreed with, however, and since then has refused to collaborate reasonably, or use the talk page before deleting information without explanation. 137.48.255.229 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock see SPI. Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 07:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's can't reach true consensus when you continue to evade your blocking for sockpuppter and take part in said discussions from multiple accounts and IP's.--Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 22:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the instigator of this section is a sockpuppet with at least 11 known socks that have been permanently blocked (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DylanPuma20/Archive). He/she is repeating the same old tired accusations for which he/she has been suspended for edit warring, disruptive behavior and block evasion. There are plenty of reasons for contesting everything he/she states above. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that was said is 100% true and verifiable. Feel free to contest it, but you can’t. The proof is in the edit summaries. Dcheagle removed massive amounts of information without reason, which goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.
At this point both of you know this and know you don’t actually have an argument to defend your poor behavior, so you’ll just keep running to admins rather than be adults and use Wikipedia the way it’s intended. Absolutely pathetic. Baskez (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 16:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evading your block yet again, I see. Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 06:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the Blue Ribbon Commission in the championship section

[edit]

@Xbox982: The facts are clear, the American Football Coaches Association, on the recommendation of its Blue Ribbon commission, awarded the retroactive championship. The way it's currently written is misleading to the causal reader, who make up the majority of those seeking out the information. The note about them being the ones who conduct the coaches poll is not relevant to the awarding of this or any of the retroactive titles. The coaches poll played no part in this as it was not conducted in 1945 and Oklahoma state is not the coaches poll champion. Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 06:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the section is it claimed that it was a Coaches Poll champion. It is explicitly labeled as an AFCA national championship, and the detail is important for the casual reader to understand who the AFCA is, not what championship was awarded. Again, the purpose of that is to simply explain to the average reader WHO the AFCA is, and there's no reason to delete that informstion:) Xbox982 (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock see SPI.--Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 23:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, arguing it's "not relevant" to explain that the AFCA conducts the Coaches Poll despite the selection mentioning the AFCA awarding OSU the 1945 Coaches' Trophy, is completely ridiculous Xbox982 (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock see SPI.--Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 23:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oklahoma_State_Cowboys_football&oldid=1254838336"