User talk:Iowa13

'Welcome!' (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Iowa13, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles

Hi! I deleted the articles in question because they fail the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#A7 - they do not assert the notability of their subject. Also, see WP:NOT#INFO. The reason was not that you were the only contributor, it was that the article was non-notable. It is unreasonable of me to re-delete the articles, since your recreation represents a contest to the deletion, so I will submit to articles for deletion. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - if I had stayed on long enough last night I would have withdrawn the noms. Based on the information that was in the articles at the time, I felt that they did not match the inclusion criteria; clearly they do, so of course, the noms would be cheerfully (retrospectively) withdrawn as mis-nominated. Thanks :). ck lostsword•T•C 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to merge them into one article? It is highly unusual to do an article for every year of every college team. Also it is unfortunate that the debate was closed early. Debates are good - they draw out experienced editors to help fix things.Obina 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - a merge might be an effective method of resolving this. I can see that the teams etc. may be notable, but a single page covering the history of the team itself might be more appropriate for inclusion. ck lostsword•T•C 16:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seems sensible once all of the content is in place :). Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~), as this makes it easier for other editors to see at a glance who made the comments. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion hard to follow. Ah well. Anyway, I think on CK's page it says there is so much information it needs a page per year. Perhaps. But is all this inforamtion needed in this encylodedia? Is it notable or trivia? It is better to have one great article rather than 4 lists of trivia. Just my view.Obina 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave the articles unfinished if you want, or I can delete them per WP:CSD#G7 - Author requests deletion. Up to you. If up for G7, just send me a note on my talk page and I will remove them for you. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted. On your return, we collaborate on the new article if you like. I'll read through your old sources and we can try to get to Good Article Class if you want :). See you around ck lostsword•T•C 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Football

For the comment you left me regarding the 1889-1899 article. Feel free to help out or even start working on the 1900-1915 article. After that I plan on doing articles kinda like "Iowa Hawkeyes football under Howard Jones" and so on. Thanks again and Go Hawks! DanThaMan17 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are a couple of templates that I'm sure you can use. Try these for doing season schedules: Template:CFB Schedule Start, Template:CFB Schedule Entry, and Template:CFB Schedule End. Once you get a hang of them they really aren't that hard to use. And try using this one to display single-game results: Template:Linescore Amfootball. Not saying what you are doing is wrong but I think these are the probably the most widely-used templates for showing single seasons in CFB. Keep up the good work! DanThaMan17 00:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the article Iowa Hawkeyes football from 1889 to 1899. Check it out and see if anything needs improvement. If not, I'll begin work on the next article in the series. Thanks! DanThaMan17 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I could get the article up to GA status if I could find and get permission to use a couple pictures. Got any suggestions? I also think that it's a little rough in a few places, but there's nothing a peer review couldn't fix. We could create an article about the WIUFA, but in doing a little research I found almost nothing about it. Good job on the articles BTW. DanThaMan17 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches poll issue

In the article NCAA Division I-A national football championship, Coaches Poll is not possessive. The poll belongs to USA TODAY; the coaches do not own the poll, they only vote in it. The Wikipedia article Coaches Poll also does not have an apostrophe. If you add one in, the link to the coaches poll article will not work. If you keep making this change, I will have your account suspended. Iowa13 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa13, first, please don't try to be an e-bully with me. You have no more right to have my access suspended than I do to have your access suspended. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, remember? And, we should care little about what links work and what links won't. The plain and simple fact is that USA Today who (as you correctly stated) owns the poll, refers to it as the "Coaches' Poll", complete with a possessive apostrophe. Why? I suppose we would have to ask USA Today for the answer, but I suspect it's because there is more than one coach that votes in it, and it's a poll in which coaches participate. If there are other articles that have the same error of omission, shouldn't they be fixed? 76.187.17.173 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.190.50 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game

Please note I have struck out your second keep vote, as you are not allowed to vote twice. Might I recommend that instead you place your comments from your second vote as a comment directly under your previous vote instead. -- SonicAD (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with red links?

What's the problem with having red links in an article? People add thousands of articles to the Wikipedia every day, so what is a red links today might be an article tomorrow. ––Bender235 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of knowing what the article of a high school or football coach will be called. For example, an article for Central High School in Chicago might be called Central High School (Chicago, IL), Central High School (Chicago), Central High School (IL), Chicago Central High School, Central High School, Chicago, IL, to name a few. An article for a football coach named Joe Smith might be called Joe Smith (American football coach), Joe Smith (football coach), Joe Smith (American football, or something else. Also, new articles for obscure football coaches (such as those who have only coached high school teams, of which many of these are) are rarely created. If you find that one has been added you are welcome to add a link. I kept the link to Raymond Burnett, as you specified that his article will be up soon. Iowa13 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) says pretty clear that it would Central High School (Chicago, Illinois) in that particular case. So you might leave at least the red links to the high schools. ––Bender235 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1A NCAA Football Championships

Sorry, my mistake, it was supposed to be 1934 (which Alabama did win), not 1935. Well, I guess this is why Wikipedia is such an incredible source (i.e. incredible information). Didn't know Hawkeyes supported the Irish so much. After reviewing the talk page for the NCAA Div. 1 NC, it would appear that you have an axe to grind with the SEC. Don't know what they did to you, but it would be nice if you quit using Wikipedia as a way to denigrate the SEC, which owns Ohio State.

Just a thought: to me it didn't seem like this user was being hypocritical. To me it seemed like they were simply asserting, as many people do (correctly IMO), that Bama deserves to have all twelve of their championships recognized. I don't think it was nice of you to call Tuscaloosa ignorant however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.145.6 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you might want to read this before accusing people of vadalism. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism. -same guy as above

Be that as it may, it is poor form to attribute to others words that you write yourself; i.e. the "which owns Ohio State" comment you added above. Further, it is extremely poor form to edit articles to try to bolster similar but unrelated subjects, such as the SEC homer edits you've made to Ohio State Buckeyes football. Wikipedia is not a repository of opinion, it is a repository of fact. (And my apologies, Iowa13, for using your talk space to address this issue, but I fear it would either be off-topic or unread by this person elsewhere.) -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this Iowa13 cat seems to get bent out of shape over little things. I mean Wikipedia is open to the public, and he gets all bent out of shape when the public does what the public does to things. If you're that concerned about doing "research" and being "credible" you should work for a credible encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.137.140 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your New NCAA Chart

I've been looking at your new MNC chart. Reviewing it shows how difficult the process is. My main gripe expressed today on the talk page was with the exclusion of the NCF picks for many of the pre-1936 years, and your new chart would fix that. At first blush, my reaction was that including every pick in the post-1936 era goes too far. For example, no sane Michigan fan would actually claim a National Championship in 1973 or 1985. There's no solution that will satisfy everyone, and maybe your proposed chart, which appears to list every pick from every source is the only way to avoid controversy. The subjective element then comes in deciding which picks to put in bold and which to put in normal font. For the most part, I think your picks make sense.

There is, however, one major bone I would pick with your chart. It concerns the 1947 National Championship, which was probably the first major MNC debate and still remains a sore point with both Notre Dame and Michigan fans. Notre Dame and Michigan switched places in the AP's #1 slot throughout the 1947 season, with Notre Dame coming out on top in the last regular season poll. However, when Michigan beat USC 49-0 in the Rose Bowl, there was an outcry in the press and public to conduct a post-bowl AP poll, and that poll was conducted. With the larget vote count in AP polling history, Michigan was picked as #1 by a 2-to-1 margin in the post-bowl poll. One person on the talk page discounts that poll as having been conducted by the Detroit Free Press, but that is not true. I have collected much of the contemporaneous reporting on the 1947 debate on the following page: 1947 Michigan Wolverines football team#The 1947 National Championship controversy. Given Michigan's 2-to-1 margin in the final AP poll for the 1947 season, and the lingering controversy, it seems the only fair result is to list both Michigan and Notre Dame as AP poll winners in 1947. Listing Notre Dame as the sole AP champion and excluding Michigan would ignore the overwhelming vote in favor of Michigan when the full season was complete. In today's world, it would be equivalent to recognizing Ohio State as the 2006 National Champion because they were AP #1 after the regular season, and ignoring the fact that they were blown out by Florida in the bowl game. Also, Michigan is the overwhelming choice for 1947 champion in other sources, includign Berryman, Billingsley, Boand, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, Helms (tie with ND), Houlgate, Litkenhous, National Championship Foundation, Poling, Sagarin.

Incidentally, the MVP of the 1947 Wolverines was Bump Elliott who went on to serve as Iowa's athletic director from 1970-1991. I have been trying to create quality pages for many Michigan greats, e.g., Germany Schulz, John Maulbetsch, Bob Chappuis, and Bump Elliott.Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the post-bowl poll was put together, controlled or run by the Detroit Free Press is completely unsupported by any of the contemporaneous reports. Lydall Smith was outspoken after the Rose Bowl game, but so were Grantland Rice, Pete Rozelle, and dozens of others sports writers. The poll was not put together, conducted, or in any way controlled by the Free Press. It was conducted by the AP through its New York headquarters, and included votes from sports editors in 48 states and the District of Columbia. The poll was sponsored by the AP and was taken of all AP newspapers in all 48 states and the District of Columbia. It actually had the highest response rate in the history of the AP college football poll to that time. The citations I have included in the 1947 Michigan Wolverines football team#The 1947 National Championship controversy section are not just local newspapers. They are articles written and issued by the Associated Press. As the Associated Press is a wire service rather than a publication, I have included citations to newspapers that picked up the AP reports. I have pdf's of the AP articles discussing the 1948 poll, its purpose, and its results which I could email to you if you want. It would be a gross injustice to have Notre Dame bolded in the article, when the vast majority of the AP writers at that time, and the vast majority of the researchers looking back prospectively agree that Michigan was the true national champion. As you say, the 1947 "Mad Magicians" are regarded as the best Michigan football team of all time. One could legitimately argue that the team had more outstanding players than perhaps any college team in history: Bob Chappuis (College Football HOF, All-American), Bump Elliott (College Football HOF, All-American, Big 10 MVP), Dick Rifenburg (All-American in 1948), Len Ford (Pro Football HOF), Pete Elliott (College Football HOF), Bob Mann, Gene Derricotte, Dan Dworsky, etc. Two of the 1947 team's stars (Ford and Derricotte) were African Americans and one was Jewish (Dworsky), and there was much said at the time that Southern AP voters refused to vote for an integrated team, and thus sided with the all-white Notre Dame team. Despite these biases, the final poll came out 2-to-1 in Michigan's favor. I have no problem with BOTH teams being recognized as National Champions in 1947, but to recognize Notre Dame with bold font and to put Michigan is in the same category and font as a 1928 University of Detroit team would reflect an unsupported bias in favor of Notre Dame. Before a final decision is made, this should be opened up to a broader discussion.Cbl62 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Harris Poll does not issue a poll beyond the bowl games, so it should not be included. That's just my opinion. Bcspro (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compete vs. Member

It's strictly bullying on your part. "Member of" is more accurately and unambiguously descriptive than "Competes in". And you know it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I would welcome the chance for a wider audience than just you 7 to weigh in on this semantics issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

national champions HS football

iowa 13 -concerning the page for National high school football champions im just trying to put the correct name of the school and and give credit to the man that coached the team, Im am not abusing the page or vandalizing, I am trying to add factual information —Preceding unsigned comment added by JM1971 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Iowa 13 , please add this to the 1951 national champions Weymouth High School Coach - Harry Arlanson[reply]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:2000.04.0001&query=keywords%3D%2335  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JM1971 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FBS National Championship article

Iowa, I agree that yours is a better version. I'd actually suggest just replacing that article with your version. See if it sticks. I know it'd be the better for it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But be sure to wear your flameproof suit and take criticism in stride. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College football national champions

The second table of the national champsionship article reads "Below is a list of ALL [emphasis added] of the championships from 1869-present", so why would you revert my edits adding USC's totals from the tables above? Newguy34 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response on my talk page. Newguy34 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four things: 1) Simmer down a bit. I know you have much pride in the substantial quantity of your edits, but you don't own the article; we all do. 2) I think clarification is needed, because it is not clear what a "consensus" national championship is, at any rate. Webster's thinks consensus means that everyone agrees. The fact that everyone does not agree is exactly why there is so much controversy over this subject. If you truly want to list "consensus" NCs (i.e., those where everyone has agreed) the list will be very, very short. 3) The public domain shows USC with 11 national championships, for example, so the table and the public domain are terribly at odds with one another, and 4) I have made a few edits (most to clarify) so I am unsure how you can characterize "the way I am going" as unacceptable, which brings me back to point number 1. Newguy34 (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have found our "consensus" happy place on this subject ;) Newguy34 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to United Kingdom. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. --Jza84 | Talk 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1529842 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Syrthiss (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Sorry about that. :) Syrthiss (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Project request

Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Unreferenced BLPs. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]