User talk:UW Dawgs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Enough

Stop slapping warnings on my Talk page. We're taking this to the article's Talk page and we will discuss it there. The information has been sourced, and if you wish to dispute on Talk, we can discuss there. No more edit warring. I'm about to have this turned over to an admin, but perhaps we can figure it out by discussing it. Keep in mind that you are in repeated violation of WP:EDITWAR (and not just with your edit dispute with me), WP:3RR, and WP:CIV. In addition, I redirect you to this section of WP:REMOVAL:

"Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.

If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template ( will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information.

Negative unsourced information about living people shall be removed immediately, as per Wikipedia's biographies of living people policy, without the use of such a template."

I'm reverting it back to the original and thoroughly sourced information. Please do not re-revert, and come to the article talk page so we can work together to resolve any issues you feel still remain.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This unsourced content issue has been discussed extensively on your Talk including explicit content callouts, diffs, and links to relevant policy with no resolution.[1], [2], [3], [4]. Changing the venue doesn't change the ongoing issue. I've asked Wikipedia:Third opinion to review the unsourced content. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nebraska edits

Got it Wscsuperfan (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edits on All-Time Series Results on the Nebraska page? Why can't that list be kept up-to-date current? Wscsuperfan (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Your citatition supports results thru the 2017 season. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Bill Libby

Please do not change anything i have added to the bill libby page as he is my father so i know what i am adding is correct. I am Laurie Libby Lib222rn (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

How do i get it to be updated to correct information. You have wrong dates listed which is falsifying information. This is not right. I am working on updating his website, if i get the information on there will you then let these edits happe. Because it is not right. Also why did you take off the bill libby memoral award list, it should be there as it is an award named after him. Lib222rn (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've twice posted to your User talk:Lib222rn#Wikipedia:Conflict of interest re your COI. Did you read that? UW Dawgs (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw that. So how do i get the correct information on his Wikipedia since you have wrong information Lib222rn (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests (which is linked from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors). Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pittsburgh Panthers women's volleyball

A tag has been placed on Category:Pittsburgh Panthers women's volleyball 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 deleted 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) 21:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Marshall Thundering Herd football

I'm curious as to why you are removing chunks of Marshall's football history. This is vandalism. Please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B100:E1AF:F007:7AAD:6522:93B2 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"Evasion"

Per WP:EVASION, I am totally okay to make constructive edits. It states the edits may stand if they are constructive.

2600:1015:B121:C03F:74BE:A6B8:29FD:8335 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's manifestly untrue. Dawg, I'm happy to help in keeping an evasive editor in check if you'll just point me to the underlying block. Maybe note your suspicions on the IP's Talk page too, so other editors can quickly see what the problem is. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:EVASION states Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes/Archive has the blocked sockmaster and particulars.
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CalebHughes has the ongoing list of socks, with another new sock account soon to join that cat.
• The IP edits can be reverted, though page protection has been used previously and is now pending. It's often easier to wait to revert to stable after PP. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:EVASION states "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)."

Inserting much-needed references and updating info are helpful changes.

"Can be reverted". You lose. Now please go away. Thanks, Dawg, for the links. Makes it easier for those of us with shorter memories to help you out. JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

JohnInDC You're in the wrong and engaging in disruptive editing. Please stop. 2600:1015:B117:6EA6:11EA:8E69:83AF:95A2 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, Dawg, you should supplement your sockpuppet report and get at least these IPs blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You're the scum of the Earth

You delete well-written and well-referenced history, you stalk users/IPs you don't like, you edit disruptively and vandalize. You are a terrible Wiki editor, and I hope one day you will get what you deserve, being blocked forever and ever and ever and you can't do this damage anymore. I anxiously await that day and hope you suffer in the worst way on Wiki.2600:1015:B119:5D3F:ADF9:840D:FFBB:78E9 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Instead of casting stones, how about you work on getting yourself unblocked - showing some understanding of how your original edits were disruptive, and committing not to engage in sockpuppetry any longer? Until you do those things, you have no standing to complain - at all - about other editors' work. Oh, PS. No personal attacks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What I said on your talk page is sufficient. I've said all that's needed to be said.2600:1015:B119:5D3F:ADF9:840D:FFBB:78E9 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way

Nomad3919 and CalebHughes are the same person. You worthless scumbag. I hate your guts.2600:1015:B119:5D3F:ADF9:840D:FFBB:78E9 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for the edit! That guy Andrew Shotland is a digital marketing guy, I saw the link in his Twitter profile and really objected to how he was using wikipedia to link to his Quora account.

Keepkalm (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.JohnnyHillboy (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hellishscrubber. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

National Championships

In regards to National Championships for a university, I always look at the most recent Media Guide for each university. If they don't specifically recognize a championship I don't add it to their list of claimed championships. But if the NCAA record book recognizes it I add it to unclaimed championships. I cite the media guide. What more do I have to do. Sullivan9211 (User talk:Sullivan9211) 18:09, 31 August 2018 (CST)

My intent wasn’t to vandalize anything on the Texas football page it says they have only 5 unclaimed national championships but 2009 isn’t on there and they played Alabama for the 2009 national championship and lost to nick Saban and the tide PlayboiiiCarti (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fresno State Bulldogs football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Sweeney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, UW Dawgs. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Syracuse football

The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

Summary of the program, very brief history, awards, stadium. Your reasoning to changing it? Pzhanik (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Let’s make a solid lead section. I’m updating the page to include the rich history, traditions and success that the program has had in the past. With the program currently being under spotlight, there has been a big increase in social media and wikipedia pages clicks. Let’s work together, and let everyone to know more about the Orange. Check out Clemson, Alabama’s lead sections. Very informative but short. I thought i did a good enough job, but if there is something you think is wrong let me know Pzhanik (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes in general. However, don't needlessly bold[5], use WP:NEUTRAL prose, and ensure all information is supported by the body of the article per WP:LEDE. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Saw bolded numbers on some page, but I changed it. I mainly follow Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame football pages for reference besides WP:NEUTRAL.

Regarding Scott Shafer. He wasn’t hired from the outside, he inherited the team from Marrone who left the program by his choice. Scott Shafer didn’t have his own era per se. The reason I included him under Coach Marrone era. Would you agree?

Also, I was thinking to incude more information on Vic Hanson, who was a legendary figure not only in Syracuse football, but also in basketball, and overall all Orange athletics. Pzhanik (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Presume you mean this edit[6]. We don't use inline tags in section headers. His tenure is peer to the other coaches and size/format of the header text should be presented in an indentical manner. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorting is wrong. Gotta go from big to small. History, traditions, rivalries (it’s historical), conference, program achievements (championships, bowls, ap polls), then individual achievements. Facilities are placed last. Pzhanik (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

List of NCAA Division I FBS football programs is a good starting place to observe similiar team articles. Your stated preferencer differs wildly. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

wildly is overstatement. Compare Syracuse page to Clemson now. Same exact order, except some that you did, I didn't bother undoing it, it seems fine to me.

LTU Football Article

I noticed you reversed my edit on that article. I must point out to you that your revised post is factually inaccurate: LTU was indeed extended an offer to play in a bowl....the Independence Bowl, agaisnt ULM. They famously did not act upon it, and the Indy Bowl then chose another school. Before I revert your edit, please provide to me any credible evidence to contradict my statements above. Thanks.Pncomeaux (talk)

Your prose includes ..., but this was turned down, as they were waiting for 'other options.' No other options came along, .... Some of this is poorly written and other bits are directly contradicted by your citation. But, you are entirely correct about the article not currently reflecting the invite/decline issue. Also, you may wish to review refill as an aide to constructing citations with fully populated parameters especially when your edit removes a well-formed citation. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Most-Played Rivalries

Pursuant to your request, I cited to an article that the Oregon State-Washington Rivalry is, in fact, a rivalry, because duh. Washington's oldest rival in the Northwest is Oregon State. The rivalry predates both the Apple Cup and the Oregon-Washington Series. Additionally, I can point to several other articles on Oregon State regarding the rivalry with Washington as a rivalry. I also added a cite to an article, which refers to Oregon State-Washington State as a rivalry.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Colorado Football Association champions listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Colorado Football Association champions. Since you had some involvement with the Colorado Football Association champions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

This is Sammysafari. The All-American for Alabama does not need a source. Its already cited on the List of Alabama Crimson Tide football All-Americans page and the 2018 College Football All-America Team page. Don't change it again. 10:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourced or not this is accurate. Go look at the Wikipedia page for 2018 College Football All-America Team page. I imagine you know how to do simple math. If Alabama had 69 Consensus All-Americans and gained 5 more after this recent 2018 season that would make 74. Do you Understand? 2:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysafari (talk • contribs)

Already linked 3x on your Talk, but here it is again including via WP:BURDEN The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok then why do most College Football pages not have their Consensus All-Americans sourced? But the Alabama Football page requires it? 3:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysafari (talk • contribs)

I've linked to the relevant wiki policy for you on 4 occasions. You should read it, so that your editing aligns with policy. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll read it. But I'm still not getting an answer on why the consensus All-American category doesn't require a source for teams such as NC State Football, Michigan St Football, Penn State Football, UNC Football, etc. But for Alabama Football it must require a source or its false information. 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysafari (talk • contribs)

Tulane Green Wave football team page format

Back on 23 November 2018, I reorganized Tulane Green Wave football to align with the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team pages format. The format proposed there doesn't appear to be a standard nor an accepted convention, but it seemed a reasonable shot at providing guidance for a consistent layout. I noticed that you recently reorganized the page, which undoes the alignment. I didn't see any explanation for that, so I wanted to reach out, first, to see if you might add some commentary to Talk:Tulane_Green_Wave_football#Alignment_to_Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Team_pages_format to provide your thoughts. Secondly, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team pages format should be changed to align with your ideas. I don't have a strong view as to what is right or the best, so maybe you might propose in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Team_pages_format changes for a different organization for the format of college football/team pages that could be used to guide everyone. Or perhaps an argument could/should be made that no guidance is really needed. Appreciate your thoughts.

— Archer1234 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Good feedback. That page has not been edited since 2010 and is demonstrably out of date. You can see as such throughout FBS articles, including via peers in Template:American Athletic Conference football navbox. I've given some thought to escalating/updating, but you've made the first reference to it in my memory. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ed Murray

Hi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Murray_(Washington_politician)

WP:BLPNAME suggests we should not name 3 alleged victims as they're private individuals.

We write an encyclopedia that seeks to reach consensus about the historical importance of (sometimes) people. Do you think the names of alleged victims are connected to the historical importance of the subject? In your view, are the specific prices of sex purchases and disposition of genitals important to understanding the historical importance of this WP:POL? Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I often wonder which details covered in the press as stories unfold belong in the encyclopedia as part of the historical record.

I'm still new so I hope to learn from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. WP:BLPNAME says When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Names of both individuals are in wide circulation (search on site:seattletimes.com "Jeff Simpson" and "Lloyd Anderson") and they are/were in contact with reporters, example:

• "Simpson, 50, of Gladstone, Oregon, said in a telephone interview he decided to file the claim 'to help me with closure and to vindicate my name.'"[7]
• "Simpson and another accuser, Lloyd Anderson, threatened a lawsuit and spoke with some reporters."[8]

I understand your callout, but don't agree in these circumstance. Your WP:EDITSUMMARY didn't give the impression that BLPNAME was your concern, so I hadn't consider it. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article. Perhaps victims will re-add their names to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Notre Dame

I think there should be a note in the article about why the 2012 and 2013 total wins are zero. The vacated wins are not mentioned except in the individual season pages. Enigma^msg 04:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken Griffey Jr. and WP:OWN

I appreciate your hard work but please familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. According to the edit history of Ken Griffey Jr. you've reverted several good faith edits (including mine) for paper thin reasons. For example, you insist on keeping the "Napgate" header even though the consensus on the talk page appears to be opposed to you (I also think it should be removed). Thank you again for all your good faith edits, but disruptive editing doesn't promote collaboration. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Alabama–Clemson football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alabama–Clemson football rivalry 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/Alabama–Clemson football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Cobyan02069 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks

Please stop your disruptive editing. (Forth warning)

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks, you may be blocked from editing.

You are engaged in blocking factual updates to the page Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks solely based on YOUR personal opinion and in violation of Wikipedia policy. You have not provided a logical argument to discuss on why accurate, factual, sourced information should not be included. This is your third warning. The other warnings can be found on the Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks talk page. Sae249833 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• UW Dawgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikipedia adminstration, this user is a fan of another college and attempt to block factual, sourced information from being inserted into the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_NCAA_Division_I_football_winning_streaks .

The user has only presented a fallacious argument composed of solely of opinion as reasoning and continually vandalised the article. I'm requesting that the user be blocked from editing.. Sae249833 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Colley Matrix

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Colley Matrix, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Specifically, you have repeatedly inserted incorrectly sourced content. You used the 2017 version of the Rulebook, which doesn't actually include the mentions of Colley in the listing you've included. If you'd like to try your edits again, you should use the correct year's Rulebook and the correct nomenclature as changed in that edition. WestWorld42018 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Tennessee Volunteers football seasons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barnhill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team

Hi I’m ksfloy4280 I wanted to let you know that your edit on the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football page was deleted because they have a vacated conference title therefore they have 15 instead of 16 Ksfloyd4280 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalebfloyd075370. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the AP poll links. Unfortunately, I'm looking for something that also includes ORV (others receiving votes) listings, but thanks for looking out anyways! (PrideMatters)

Georgia Bulldogs football

Hey it’s ksf132 I wanted to let you know that you put 4 years on the Georgia Bulldogs Football page under unclaimed national championships but you wrote 3 beside the four years. Ksf132 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Big Seven Conference

Where is the consensus discussion about changing this to a DAB page? It seems like the league that actually used this as its official name (the Big Eight) should use that name over a conference that had it as an unofficial name. I read the discussion at Talk:Skyline Conference (1938–1962) and don't see this clearly decided. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Being bold per that same Talk page and data thereon, as relates an end goal of further clean up of Skyline Conference (1938–1962) content and cats. I'll note that both the "Skyline" and "Big Eight Conference" usage of "Big Seven" is/appears to be unofficial. I get the implicit argument re "Big Eight Conference" and common name in particular. Let's take further discussion to the Skyline article's Talk since there is more visibility for related editors. Give me a few more mins to paste my notes on that Talk as was always my intent. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Northwest Ohio League football standings

Hello, UW Dawgs,

Thanks for creating List of Northwest Ohio League football standings! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your eferences.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

UCF has won 25 in a row

this is verifiable. Stop edit warring with the IPs. Enigma^msg 22:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Agreed and stated on Talk, UCF won 25 in a row. The SPA editor is making two core claims, the streak is 25 games and it places UCF in a 6-way tie through the 2018 season. The latter claim is unsourced and dual sourcing is unlikely to surface until the NCAA's comprehensive 2019 Record Book is published -also discussed on the article's Talk.[9] The FBS section (intro and table) was previously accurate, cited, and verifiable when stated as through the 2017 season. After these edits, the FBS section is no longer is in agreement with the section intro, table, and sourcing -there is no sourcing for the 6-way tie content through the 2018 season which the edits purport.

That makes these edits a violation of WP:SYN policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Citing UCF's 25-game streak through the 2018 season does not ALSO establish that they are now in a 6-way tie with a list of teams established by a 2017-season citation.

The repeated insertion of that unsourced content by the editor is a violation of WP:UNSOURCED policy: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] There is no sourcing of any kind for the 6-way tie claim.

I think WP:AGF is always helpful. Telling me simply that UCF has won 25 games is missing nature of the sourcing defect, the existing discussion on the article's Talk, all recent edit summaries which state this defect, and the retaliatory threats made to my Talk[10] -while charming, they are not my motivation. The article was demonstrably accurate and well-cited prior to the editor's sole interest in crow-barring UCF's accomplishment. And they have not to date produced an edit which conforms to wiki policy or acknowledged the issues directly called out on Talk.

An aside, we don't have this sourcing problem with incremental career/all-time records in pro sports, as S/R and the official league sites update their current record holders throughout the season. Ex, S/R can source daily changes to the NBA's all-time FG-leaders fg_career.html, such as LaMarcus Aldridge is currently the No 62. with 7300 FG through Feb 5, 2019. And if he makes 6+ FGs in his next game, he will pass Mitch Richmond and become No 61 on that list. Etc with NFL, MLB, and so on. Contrasting here with the lack of any known real-time coverage of this article's topic.

I do appreciate that you presumably dislike multiple PP requests. As the editor (appears to have) registered a SPA account, jumps IPs, and raises obvious SOCK issues which seems to put us beyond WP:DONTBITE, PP seems to be the best option as the article's underlying facts will not change during the off-season. There remain multiple ways to include UCF's achievement on the article, including waiting for the NCAA to publish their 2019 Record Book as a RS or simply appending UCF's 2018 accomplishment below the table for later inclusion when it can be paired to the list with sourcing. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You are claiming that every edit adding UCF is of one user edit warring against consensus. This is simply not correct. There are at least three different people trying to get UCF included on the list. Enigma^msg 05:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

removing tables

Not sure why you're going through dozens of college football program articles removing various lists and tables. If they need sourcing or updating, leave a banner to indicate that and give regular page editors a chance to fix things. It took me all of ten minutes to update the table you deleted at Florida Gators football. Thanks. --Zeng8r (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of NCAA Division I Baseball Championships recent history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NCAA Division I Baseball Championships recent history 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/NCAA Division I Baseball Championships recent history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Jay Jor (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Good Taste

	Award of Highest Merit
	I was just minding my business going through old AN/I archives when I came across this, and subsequently, this: You smell like poo! I must commend you for your impeccably good taste. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Long section tedford

I broke down the section into subsections and took out some content as per marker "This section is too long. Consider splitting it into new pages, adding subheadings, or condensing it." Yet you put up the marker again. Can you please be more specific regarding your issue.Rybkovich (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Cal Bears football. The Tedford-era section is possibly the largest coaching section seen in any FBS team article -coaching sections are generally no more than 4 paragraphs for a notable and long-tenured coach. Note, the Tedford section at Cal Bears football is almost double that seen on Jeff Tedford within the Cal section where that article is entirely about Tedford. The section should be pruned to summarize, rather than itemize. Hence the tag. Are you interested in trimming it? UW Dawgs (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Tedford era is not a coaching section, it is a historic period of time that is referred to by the name of the coach. It is reasonable to include information such as key details of a season and names of great players.

You're using the article that you invest a lot of your time in - UW Huskies as a template for other articles with other approaches. Other people contributed to the Tedford section, it was WORK, I respect their work. If their information was superfluous, I transferred to the season entry. If I agreed with their decision to have that information in the article (note it was not a sole decision, me retaining it is TWO editors agreeing on the point) I kept it. Just like I respected your OPINION and made some trimmings and subsections, please respect other editors, especially the ones that CONTRIBUTE CONTENT to the articles. Re Dykes, before encouraging that content is edited out, please make an entry explain why the section is too long, so it can be discussed by other editors. You don't have to excuse the tone of this message, but please try to understand it, it takes editors time to research and to enter the information, calling for deletion of the product of that WORK without making suggestion is simply disrespectful. One is much more willing to edit their WORK, if the request is respectfully presented in the TALK SECTION. Rybkovich (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Length tagging of 11-year Tedford section on Cal Bears football. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

College football scoring

Hey, regarding this edit summary, can you specify what you mean by "CFB project norms"? I checked the WikiProject style guide and didn't see anything about it there. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If an article has context of a single team, W|L TeamScore–OppScore. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

It is not disruptive editing to add factual information to an article, even to continue to do so against persistent effort from those who don’t like the new content and try to remove it without substantiation. You do good work on Wikipedia and make valuable additions. I’m not sure why you have chosen to challenge the NCAA’s trademarked website, or to join in the nonsensical argument that the list of FBS champions on the NCAA’s own championship website is somehow not worth mentioning. It is true that schools routinely claim dubious championships and that that information should be mentioned in the schools’ Wikipedia sites. But it is equally true that the NCAA’s own championship website lists FBS champions dating back to 1869. This is also legitimate to mention on the Wikipedia site. I would argue even more so. The fact that NCAA, like nearly every other sports league and many corporations, outsources management of the site doesn’t negate the list of champions. Nor does the fact that, like the other sports sites, some articles on the site are opinion columns, which always include a disclaimer. Tellingly, the list of champions has no such disclaimer. The NCAA site has been recognized by ESPN and other reputable sports organizations as a legitimate listing of NCAA-recognized champions. This certainly supersedes the desire of a small handful of Wikipedia editors trying to protect the alleged sanctity of claimed championships. Unless you can find sourced documentation that the NCAA list is not credible, it is a legitimate addition to school’s Wikipedia sites. Every edit I have made is backed up by fact and is verifiable. Feel free to make a challenge based upon your view that the NCAA’s own site isn’t a legitimate source of information. I’m quite certain how that challenge will be resolved. ~~Accuracy Matters~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorePhin (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

re you 8/21 California Golden Bears 3 championships edit

Per NCAA only 3 cal championships are recognized https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs Rybkovich (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct, but incomplete. The NCAA does not select FBS champions. That NCAA page (and this NCAA page) list the selections of some (but not all) external selectors. There are two existing citations California Golden Bears football#National championships which accurately support the statement of five seasons. The topic of these "incomplete" lists on ncaa.com has been previously discussed, including here and here. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. An edit that you recently made to 1994 FIFA World Cup seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Red River Showdown here

Hi UW ~ Nice to meet you ~ I think I see why you reverted me (I have returned the proper info in the info box) maybe you are thinking that every time that texas and Ou get together it's a red river showdown ~ but the game played on December 1, 2018 was not a red river showdown it was a national championship ~ totally different than the red river show down ~ if you think I'm in error lets talk about it ~ I'll be glad too ~ once again nice meeting you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I observe there have been numerous edits on this topic, which have been consistently reverted to use the most recent game played within that field.[11] My revert was based on this observed/implied concensus. If you'd like to start a discussion on the article, I'm happy to weigh in with more color. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi~ where? (My revert was based on this observed/implied consensus)~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi UW ~ I just got reading what you called a consensus ~ you are highly mistaken ~ your opinion and two IP address's opinion about a major change on a Wikipedia article does not amount to a true consensus ~ ~ no examples by you or the two IP's ~ but if you look at the added Remove Championship Game result from Red River Rivalry ~ from April 2019 I think you are sadly mistaken on your referencing it as a consensus ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  In the article history link I provided, you can observe 6 IPs and one blocked SPA/VOA editor changing the infobox date over the last several months. You can also see multiple CFB-oriented editors reverting the IPs, with on-point edit summaries, based on their thorough understanding of the issue. That is I why I referred to you to the history, not the Talk page which you are now referencing. Note, I am in no manner linking your intent to the behavior of the IPs, just observing that this issue is already well-understood by the CFB project. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! UW ~mitch~ (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Those people from Sports Illustrated, must have been in Louisiana when they called it the Red River Classic (lol) ~ Hi UW Dawgs! ~mitch~ (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Rocky Mountain Showdown content

You left a message on my talk page. If you are referring to the content which you have just removed for being unsourced, the only thing I have to say in response is that I did not add it to the article in the first place. I checked my contributions throughout Wikipedia and It does not show up at all. 24.237.115.10 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit changed the series to 92 games and 68–22–2. The cited totals are 91 games and 67–22–2. If you disagree with that citation, you're welcome to find an alternate citation. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I did that was someone decided to add a non-existent game in 1890 to the game results table. I quickly reverted the change when I saw that the "game" was added rather sloppily to the table (it had TBA as the location of the game, which was a big red flag). I apologize for making the change; let's just try to keep the game results from being tampered with any further. 24.237.115.10 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

South Carolina 2007

You can see on here on the schedule and results that South Carolina started the season 6-1, and lost the rest of their games. Yes they finished 6-6 but no they did not get picked for a bowl game. Including losing to Vandy 17-6 and Tennessee 27-24 in overtime after a 21-0 comeback. The bad thing about it, it doesn't even have anything about the 2007 season, how are people gonna know what happened? The year 2007 season existed. You can't skip seasons, come on now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football_team

https://www.footballdb.com/college-football/teams/fbs/south-carolina/results/2007

https://www.espn.com/college-football/game?gameId=273002633

https://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=273002633

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVhxKkvduH8&list=LLu7ac13KRHR-5QcrlYc-otw&index=8&t=0s

Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit, the section is already tagged with Template:Very long section because contains 8 paragraphs (4 pargraphs is a lot), the edit is unsourced, and game scores are separated with hyphens rather than endashes. As such, the edit is unnecessary WP:RECENTISM. Re immediately above, content on each season is not required. Indeed, this content is absent from the expected article at 2007 South Carolina Gamecocks football team. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Weber State Wildcats football seasons moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of Weber State Wildcats football seasons, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Golden Eagles Football Rivalries content

You have twice deleted rivalries on the Southern Miss Golden Eagles football page, stating that a reliable source is needed. The official football program is cited, which is a reliable source. Please explain why you keep deleting these statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDTilley (talk • contribs) 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Rivalry section has been tagged with Template:Refimprove-section for almost one year, re lack of supporting citations. The East Carolina section has two citations, neither of which directly support a rivalry. Ditto Louisville. Ditto UAB with one citation. Establishing a routine series does not establish that a rivalry exists. Our policy of WP:BURDEN states All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] Please do not continue to add or restore unsourced rivalry claims to this Rivalry section. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The term rivalry is subjective and a matter of opinion. However, two schools with upward of 30 competitive games since the 40s and 50s, regardless of conference membership, would constitute a rivalry to most (including myself, a life-long USM fan). I agree that de facto series meetings due to shared conference membership do not constitute a rivalry. The UAB addition was not made by me. The consensus opinion of USM fans that USM-ECU and USM-UL were rivalry games is based upon years of history and competitive matchups among these teams. This can be verified by reviewing the reliable source that I have provided. Any further citation mentioning rivalry would only be citing authors' opinions, whereas the included citation provides actual evidence of the rivalries. Please refrain from removing these rivalries from the rivalry section, as the WP:BURDEN has been met for these rivalries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDTilley (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Rivalries

I noticed the edits you made to the college football rivalries page. I believe the page as it stands now dilutes the meaning of "rivalry", which is a game where two teams (and BOTH sets of fans) take particular pleasure in defeating their opponent. A Washington-Oregon game is much more a rivalry game than Washington-Oregon State. The latter is more a longstanding series and less a rivalry game. I would say this is one case where splitting the sections into a "Major Rivalry" and "Other Rivalry games" preserves the meaning of rivalries by highlighting the particularly intense ones. I am even volunteering to help maintain the page. G. Capo (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Our policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability states, In Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.

The groupings created by your edit ("Highlighting particularly heated college football rivalries, so I broke the initial rivalry section out into two subsections. This may not be entirely accurate, but it's close. Feel free to correct/edit.") appear to be based solely on your personal opinions. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if I pulled up a few good sources to support my edit...which comes from watching a number of seasons of college football? G. Capo (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you take your ideas to that article's Talk page for community feedback and further discussion. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Joke

So I was getting ready to tell the best football joke ever (pertaining to the game of the century--Tide rolls knows it, I'm sure), but a student one-upped me. I asked, "Do you know the best joke in college football?", and he said, "Tennessee". Alright then! Drmies (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Red River Showdown

The Red River Showdown (or Rivalry, or Shootout) is the football game between The University of Texas and The University of Oklahoma. It occurs on either the first or second Saturday day in October. It is NOT anytime UT and OU play football. Neither is it the first Saturday in December. That is the Big12 championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesabrerattler (talk • contribs) 01:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Red River Showdown#Remove Championship Game result from Red River Rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Are we still talking about that? Drmies (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC))

No, they went away. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ndash

idk how to do endash

• You can copy it from the WP:Infobox in the upper right corner of the article. The player will have a "current team" with years, ala (2018–present). UW Dawgs (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Troy–UAB football rivalry

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Troy–UAB football rivalry. I do not think that Troy–UAB football rivalry fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The current version is not "substantially similar". Version deleted had 1 source cittion, to a wiki. This has 12.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Troy–UAB football rivalry for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, did you move Troy–UAB football rivalry from draft to the main article space intending to delete it? The logs seem to suggest that. That seems unfortunate and poor practice to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, perhaps they've never reviewed Drafts, and it just seemed easier to try to get it deleted. You can refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions. Declining the draft takes less community resources in the long run. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: Jeff Rosenthal

Thanks for the heads up, I've gone ahead and protected the other page and its talk page as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penn State Nittany Lions football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Franklin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Edward Glass

I noticed your reversion of my fix to an article. If you want to create an article about the Edward Glass who played football at Yale, then go ahead and do so, but you cannot do that at the Edward Glass location because that is a disambiguation page. And it is invalid to link to disambiguation pages from any mainspace article, and there is vast program and machinery to find and remove all such links, so your re-created link will get revisited by other editors following this, even if I completely walk away.

One way to fix it is to remove the linking, as i did, on expectation that a separate article about this person is not likely to be created soon.

Another way you can "fix" it temporarily, is to change the link in the article to a redlink for the name of the article you think is needed, say to Edward Glass (bulldawg). And add that redlink to the disambiguation page, too, with an entry like:

• Edward Glass (bulldawg), a Yale Bulldogs football player

There is a lot of guidance available about disambiguation but maybe this is all you need right now. Or see also MOS:DABRL, Wikipedia:Disambiguation, etc. Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

See the diff.[12] I used the undo link to alert you, but actually fixed this by changing (not reverting) the link to Edgar Glass (1902 Yall AA). Confusion relates to similar first names. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, i could not see that, either time, just looking at the diffs. I see now, "Edgar" not "Edward". Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of LSU Tigers football seasons, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 1977 Sun Bowl, 2016 Citrus Bowl and 2019 Fiesta Bowl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

~ By the way ~

	~ Happy New Year ~
	~ better late than never! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

New user

Here's a new user you might want to take a look at: User:Suspicious Minded. Cbl62 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Some edits very similar to what was seen with User:UnderMyHead. Cbl62 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

TfD: Template:1925 NCAA independents football records, etc

UW Dawgs, happy new year. I have nominated Template:1925 NCAA independents football records and six other similar templates that you created for deletion. These have been replaced by regional templates like Template:1925 Eastern college football independents records. Please see the discussion at here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Split proposals

I noticed you proposed nine splits according to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Article alerts from at least four months ago, many of which have not received discussion from other users. At this point, I think you should go ahead and make your suggested changes since there doesn't seem to be any vocal opposition to the moves. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Michigan is the exception where there was opposition expressed, given that we already have five "history" articles broken down by era. The alternative suggestion was made to trim the "history" section in the main article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kilumley

Hey -- This user showed up less than two weeks ago almost exclusively making edits on football rivalry issues. It appears to be possibly consistent with some of the socks you have dealt with. Just a heads up in case you wish to take a closer look. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Added Special:Contributions/Kilumley. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes UW Dawgs (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: independents football standings lists

UW Dawgs, per the restructuring of the independent college football record templates by geographical region, I have nominated List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1869–1905) and List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1906–1955) for deletion. Please see the discussion at here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Poo

Your user page for the past five years has consisted of narrative comment stating of "You smell like poo." In those five years, you have become more involved in serious Wikipedia endeavors, including your ongoing work in monitoring sockpuppets and reverting vandalism. Do you think it's time to remove the "poo"? If you should decide at some point to run for adminship or other such roles, you might want to distance yourself from such mephitis. Just a suggestion, of course. Cbl62 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1948 Colorado Buffaloes football team

The article 1948 Colorado Buffaloes football team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I'm not seeing reason for this article to stick around in WP:NSEASONS.

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. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, removed the PROD for multiple reasons, but primarily that the topic passes GNG.

The 1948 CU team is not different than similar CU era teams (Category:Colorado Buffaloes football seasons), the treatment is identical to the 1948 CFB era peers (1948 college football season#Major conference standings), and there is vast agreement including as seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Single season notability discussion library where teams at this (highest) level of CFB competition regularly/universally pass at AfD. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Chessend

User:Chessend looks like another one of the rivalry socks. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello, I'm NASCARfan0548. I noticed that you recently removed content from 1968 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Boston College–UMass football rivalry

Re your revert at [13]: What's not in the citation?

The Boston College–UMass football rivalry (The Battle of the Bay State) is a college football rivalry between the Boston College Eagles football team of Boston College and UMass Minutemen football team of the University of Massachusetts Amherst.[citation needed]

This cite includes: As the season gears up, sports fans in the region are looking forward to the Battle Of The Bay State between UMass and Boston College.

I'd like to fix this cite, but first I'd need to know what's missing. Cheers. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 21:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As you noted, the "rivalry" claim made by the first sentence of the lede (and the article's title) is not supported by this particular citation. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 23:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD nominations

I noticed that you nominated a few AfDs and also repeated your !vote as nom. However, WP:DISCUSSAFD says: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. You might consider removing the redundant !votes. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Something interesting seems to uniquely happen within rivalry AfDs, where !Votes pivot away from article topic/GNG/RS citations to sourcing of tangential events. So will pivot my AfD "template" accordingly, moving forward. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— Wug·a·po·des​ 00:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ice hockey clubs disestablished in 1952

A tag has been placed on Category:Ice hockey clubs disestablished in 1952 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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1952 disestablishments in Washington (state)

A tag has been placed on Category:1952 disestablishments in Washington (state) 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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Brycenn

You may want to have a look at User:Brycenn. Another possible rivalry sock? Cbl62 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

NFL articles

Why does the Packers article only credit them with winning ONE championship in each of the years 1966 and 1967 while the Jets and Chiefs articles credit them with winning TWO league championships in the years that they won both the AFL Championship and the Super Bowl? That is totally inconsistent. The Packers article is well sourced, so the Jets and Chiefs articles should be changed.Politician818 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The editors who reverted you[14] linked to the discussion at Talk:National Football League#No, this is not the Chiefs’ first NFL Championship. Please discuss there. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Gopher/Badger "coChamp"

Yes, and I am not the person who modified it anonymously nor is my modification erroneous in this reality that is life.

There's arbitrary rulings and there's reality. The reality is the nature of a hierarchical sports league is that there IS and MUST be a real defined division champion, regardless of what ANYONE says, otherwise there is no hierarchy. The team that represents their division in the championship game is the division champion regardless of what publication the Big 10 publishes in an effort to make money. The Gophers lost a tie break. How the big 10 wants to document that is meaningless in reality. Guitarmousepad (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Note, your opinion is contradicted by existing citations, other articles, and longtime treatment of this content. Note, wiki has a policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and I have also directly quoted from reliable sources twice on your Talk. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Recognizing the realities of how life works regardless of arbitrary rules is not an opinion. It's not a true league if there are ties. I will see myself out of this hell hole. Thought it would be fun. It's just as painful as every other arbitrary part of life. These citations, other articles, and longtime treatment of this content, are opinions themselves. They are arbitrary. Like I said, I'm out. Get a life. Guitarmousepad (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi UW Dawgs. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio 11:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Southwestern Athletic Conference football standings

List of Southwestern Athletic Conference football standings is "breaking the Wiki." See the note on the talk page for details. Since you are the major contributor of this page, you might be in the best position to fix the problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

He's baaaaack....

See User:UW Dawgs' Worst Nightmare. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: NFL notability

May need to bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Arkansas–Texas Tech

I've been going through CalebHughes' rivalry articles and successfully nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry. I am considering also nominating Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry, another CalebHughes creation. The article does cite one local source (here), and a blog, referring to it as a rivalry. The teams played 35 times from 1957 to 1991, but my newspaper searches don't turn up any significant coverage from the time when they played dealing with the series as a rivalry. (Indeed, zero hits for "arkansas texas tech rivalry", "arkansas texas tech football rivalry", "texas tech arkansas rivalry", and "texas tech arkansas football rivalry".) Rather, it appears to have been an ordinary Southwest Conference matchup that ceased when Arkansas departed the SWC in 1991. It was also pretty one-sided with Arkansas owning a 29–8 edge. Have you looked at notability on this one? Thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

? Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

They are all mostly dubious. xtools.wmflabs.org

1. Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry
2. Alabama–Georgia football rivalry
3. TCU–Texas football rivalry
4. Auburn–Ole Miss football rivalry
5. Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry · (Deleted)
6. Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry · (Deleted)
7. Alabama–Clemson football rivalry - Already did AFD, passed/recentism.
8. Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry · (Deleted)
9. UTEP–UTSA football rivalry · (Deleted)

UW Dawgs (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think that Arkansas-Texas Tech is a good next step? Or is there another candidate from this list that you think is even weaker in terms of notability? Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Houston–SMU rivalry

I do not understand the reasoning for deletion of the football rivalry information between Houston and SMU. I have been editing many of the articles related to rivalries of the American Athletic Conference and similarly to Cincinnati–Memphis rivalry these schools have shared history in men's basketball and football. I intended to expand the knowledge base on the rivalries and am hoping that a reversal could be possible. Some of the relevant sources I could find for the rivalry were also focused on the football side, making revising the men's basketball rivalry more challenging. Thanks in advance for any clarification or change of heart.

Lightofdiogenes (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As noted and linked on your Talk, Houston–SMU football rivalry[15] has been created and deleted twice. As also noted, your recreation of the deleted article used identical text and citations. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Confused

You sent me a message that I’m using multiple accounts which is not true. Just thought I’d state this for the recoding and yo acknowledge I read your message. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsman97 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ark/Ole Miss page

If I remember correctly all I did was add the rankings to the section title which I got from the team page linked right below each of the years and I classified it as a minor edit (which it was)... It’s all good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsman97 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources as it appears none of your edits to date make use of citations. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Nebraska Cornhuskers football

I didn't know we listed ALL the rivalries in the infobox. I think that's crazy--that's way too many, and it defeats the purpose. Can we not just take them out altogether? We would lose NOTHING at all, except for a bunch of filler (that in this article got broken easily). Drmies (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nebraska is definitely a qty edge case -I have no opinion re NOT and AfDs. Talk:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football handles this "better" with some local article consensus to limit. re MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the bigger Infobox deficiencies to me are around ...to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article and Creating overly long templates with a number of irrelevant fields is not recommended. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

	Hope and Safe
	~ Happy Holidays ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Confused

Thanks for fixing the website citation on the Pitt-Notre Dame rivalry. I used the auto citation tool and it must not have generated all the information. I truly appreciate the fix. However, I am wondering why you restored the "need citation" tag for the intro sentence. I thought Wikipedia did not require a citation for the intro sentence if the rest of the text clearly supports the statement and contains the necessary cites.

More important, I am wondering why your message refered me to the policy on vandalism along with limits on acceptable additions. I hope the reference to vandalism is a standard reference, and not meant for me personally. I have not published anything that could remotely be considered vandalism and do not intend to do so in the future. So may I respectfully ask why that was included in the message, and what I (or somebody else) can do to satisfy the "need citation" tag on the intro line? Thanks.

Third degree 14 (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This edit[16] removed a maintenace tag without resolving the issue, which was then restored.[17] It's not a big deal, I know you have about 30 edits and there is a learning curve (Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers). Template:Uw-tdel1 might have been a better choice, but it lacks other basic and helpful links as now seen on your Talk. Cheers and happy editing. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to follow up so that I can learn how to do this properly, can you tell me why the intro definition needs a citation tag? Is this not considered a college football rivalry? I notice that it is on the list of college football rivalries linked at the bottom of the page? If that is not enough, what else would be needed to remove the tag? I came across at least one article that referenced the "rivalry" between the schools. Would that do the trick? Also, why is there a tag from 2016 on top saying that the article "needs to be updated". Hasn't it now been updated with recent edits? Can that tag be removed now? Third degree 14 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The article purports this is a rivalry and lacks citations on same. See WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Guard link updating

As a generational Coug fan, I despise you and everything your username stands for, but can I sugest that if it is truly important to you to update all of those links that WP:AWBREQ could maybe get some traction. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

While the link has changed from Guard (American and Canadian football) to Guard (gridiron football), I'm not sure that anything needs to be done about it on a systematic basis using AWB. Per WP:AWBRULES, "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." A reader seeing the article will see no difference, and a click on the redirect will take the reader to the correct article, whether or not it has been "fixed". Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly I am not good at this

In an attempt to honor one of the major figures in our field, Dr. Stewart Donaldson, I clearly made mistakes. None of this was malicious or meant as aggressive, but it does show my noob status. (I had started to update the page and went to bed, thinking I'll just clean that up in the morning. You were on point and took down the half-sourced, overly long page within a few hours.) So I did my homework and prepped the full page with citations - but that was taken down as well, maybe because I had cleared my browser cache and failed to sign in. Being threatened with getting banned from Wikipedia is alarming, since nothing was done in any spirit but to give credit to an important scholar (albeit in a niche field most won't know). I am honestly trying to do this the correct way. Friarthe (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Paul Thomas

See policies at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, then the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Note, historically that article has a very strong appearance of WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. This account's resumption of editing after 9 years, to make identical unsourced edits as prior IPs has the appearance of Sockpuppetry. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ikaika Malloe

Hey I see you’re a dawgs fan can you make an article for Ikaika Malloe the co-defensive coordinator for them Bigmike2346 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think he passes WP:GNG including some direct bio stuff at SeattleTimes.com. If you don't have the time or interest, see Wikipedia:Requested articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oklahoma State

Oklahoma State did not win a division this year as there are no divisions in the Big 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.63.40.44 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:204.63.40.44#2010 Oklahoma State. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi UW Dawgs

Hi, I'd just like to say Go Dawgs! (Except the real UW is Wisconsin) 1Luca2 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Louisville–West Virginia rivalry

Hello, UW Dawgs,

Every time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/TFD, etc.), please post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. It's important that content creators know what is going on with the articles they create, especially if there are problems that they can resolve. If you use Twinkle, the program will automatically post a notice for you once you set up your Twinkle preferences. It makes it very easy. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

cool a123

Hello UW Dawgs i got a mesage from u about the Pac-12 Championship page on wikipedia

Indeed. You deleted it[18] and then posted here[19]. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello [User:UW Dawgs|UW Dawgs]] (talk) I am wondering why i might get blocked from editing pages in Wikipedia

You ignored multiple editors asking you to stop misusing your Talk page, continue to delete feedback from your Talk rather than replying to (and learning from) it, deleted an ANI notice without replying to (and learning from) it[20] and continue to make edits which frequently are resolved with other editors WP:Reverting your edits. It appears to me that your enthusiasm currently exceeds familiarity with wiki. I'd suggest you read the link currently on your Talk page or Help:Getting started before resuming with new edits. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Already did that and quoted policy for you at User talk:CatcherStorm#December 2020. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Cowboys–Packers rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cowboys–Packers rivalry 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/ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

– PeeJay 00:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Championships edit

Hi what was the issue with my edit? I'm confused how that would be a misrepresentation considering it's on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolverineNation (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit was readded, another editor also reverted,[21], and then WN thanked them after understanding the issue.[22]. So I didn't reply here. Enter to Learn; Go Forth to Serve. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

you’re correct, UWDawgs is misusing Wikipedia. Here is the Wiki link for dispute resolution — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes Eric1974x (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia establishes in the editing links UW Dawgs has recommended, "You just need to remember that you can't break Wikipedia and although there are many protocols, perfection is not required, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles."Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia

If UW Dawgs had an issue with some misspelled words or links, then UW Dawgs could have engaged in good-faith editing by correcting the words or the formatting of sources/links, rather than deleting entire sentences and accompanying sources.

What readers/editors like us are searching for is a consensus on including Neutral and Fact-Based content, which is not currently the case in these articles about the University of Washington Huskies (i.e. UW Dawgs). As Wikipedia reminds us: "Behind the scenes of Wikipedia articles, there is a large community of volunteer editors working to build the encyclopedia. It is not uncommon for editors to disagree about the way forward. That is when discussion and attempts to reach consensus should take place.Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia:Discussion and consensus

UW Dawgs: how can we collaborate in a constructive manner to evolve the entries about 1984 University of Washington football, UW National Championships, the 1984 College Football Season, and related matters that are currently in an "edit-war"?edit warEric1974x (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

After you made your eighth article edit, I suggested you review both Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. That remains my suggestion to you. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I had reviewed the Getting Started before and during the editing, as I am a novice editor. Your accusation and recommendation about "single purpose accounts" is unfounded, since I believed I was logged into my account during every edit I made, which was on my iPhone and was very difficult due to the clumsy integration of the Wikipedia iOS App and differing functionality within each browser vs. the iOS App. Since it is obvious I am a novice editor, you should have assumed good faith on my part, instead of continuing to repeat accusations about violating "single purpose accounts" and making threats as you do with many other users. I wonder why you would immediately assume a fringe conspiracy theory about me "collaborating with multiple accounts" to make edits? Perhaps this is projection on your part?

In the Getting Started guides, Wikipedia recommends the following: "While discussing matters, it is very important that you conduct yourself with civility and assume good faith on the part of others."Discussion_and_consensus I recommend you re-read this section, since you are not following the Wikipedia project's protocols and recommendations despite being a veteran editor. You are not assuming good faith, and are not engaging in Discussion and consensus but simply imposing your biased POV and using your extensive knowledge of Wikipedia protocols and vast experience as an editor to bully novices into submission, and/or banishment from Wikipedia.

A normal person operating in good faith would be open to discuss the points causing the contention, perhaps even editing the "offending" material so it complies with the project's protocols. Wikipedia asks us to discuss within the Talk pages. I am trying to do so on your Talk page and answered the lengthy and misguided accusations/threats you made on my Talk page. However, you are simply repeating your false accusations and repeating your sarcastic "recommendation" to read the Getting Started Guide, contrary to the Wikipedia project's spirit and protocols.

At this point, you have threatened me enough that of course I will not be making any more edits. Your knowledge of these arcane rules and protocols will be used to banish me by accusing me of making "disruptive edits" and "vandalism" when the truth is much simpler: I am a new editor who does not know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. This is the same case for at least 4 or 5 other users I see on your Talk page, all novices who are bewildered by your threats and unsure how to proceed. I have yet to see actual engagement over the substance of the disagreement, rather you simply use your superior Wikipedia editing knowledge and experience to dominate us into submission to your POV.

I am seeking Discussion and Consensus, and will make another attempt in the Talk page of the articles in question. The Wikipedia project and I would appreciate your engagement in civil discussion to arrive at consensus and improve said articles. Thank you.Eric1974x (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Josh Hawley

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Josh Hawley, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Colts Nation

Why do you have a problem with people trying to acknowledge what the Indianapolis Colts organization replaced the 12th Man with? It's not speculative or conjecture; if you go to the physical building where the Ring of Honor is and see where the 12th Man used to be placed, it was replaced with the term "Colts Nation", not to mention any articles discussing new entries into the Ring of Honor by the team will see the organization mention the phrase mentioned in the same year that the 12th Man originally was enshrined, as well as on their media guides. You seem to hone in on any and every attempts to address this change and revert it like it's a cardinal sin. 2603:900A:1A0E:6600:D4C0:EE71:751A:EA1 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rivalry tables - compact v. expanded

Per this discussion and several similar discussions I've participated in over the years, it's consensus that college football rivalry tables should be left in expanded form when both teams are often ranked. That way, both teams and their rankings are displayed in the entry for each game, not just the winning team. Could you restore the expanded view to the the handful of Florida-involved rivalry article tables that you just switched to compact view? I didn't revert since you made additional tweaks in some of those edits and I don't want to undo your other work. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Zeng8r, you do great stuff (non-exclusively) on all matters re Florida. I observe that compact is the by far the most common implementation in the cat, poll data globally within these article sections is neither sourced nor specified (re AP, presumably), and mobile is appx 50% of usage where the wider format creates wrapping issues on small screens. That said, explicitly, feel free to revert re those Florida articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Charlotte 49ers football

A tag has been placed on List of Charlotte 49ers football requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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 deleted 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. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders football

A tag has been placed on List of Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders football requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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 deleted 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. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of UMass Minutemen football

A tag has been placed on List of UMass Minutemen football requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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 deleted 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. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

List of NCAA Division I women's volleyball programs

Hello UW Dawgs,

I want to update you on a list you started. I finished adding arenas to every school on the List of NCAA Division I women's volleyball programs. Just thought you may want to know since you started the list. Have a good one. spatms (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2019‎

South Carolina Football

I'm literally including info that's covered in the body of the article. Why are you policing this South Carolina Football page with such scrutiny? Again, the small blurb I've added is covered in the body of the article itself. It's completely legit (not made up).

Missouri Tigers Football

If you are upset that I took out the 2007 National Championship for the Missouri Tiger football team, I'm just going by the 2020 NCAA FBS Records that are put out. For 2007 it only list LSU and ONLY LSU for the 2007 National Championship. Here is the link. The page is 119. sullivan9211

February 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Cult, you may be blocked from editing. It's your choice: you either create an article for at least one of the tours The Cult participated on, or stop adding. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at The Cult

Hello User:UW Dawgs. You've been warned for edit warring on The Cult per the complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Either of you may be blocked if that person reverts the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1975 Middle Three Conference football season

A tag has been placed on Category:1975 Middle Three Conference football season 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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision Inquiry

Hello, today you did my revision of the Michigan Wolverines football page. Today, Michigan, Northwestern, and the Big Ten announced the creation of a rivalry game and trophy between the schools. I properly cited the link in my revision. I am not sure why the revision was undone. Thanks SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Rivalry Series

Please tell me why games such as the Ohio State-Michigan rivalry are allowed to have the series count displayed, but not the Michigan vs. Notre Dame/Michigan State/Minnesota. It seems as if you are undoing my edits to just undo them at this point. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith before posting anything else here.

Thanks for discussing. Allowed? Editors reverted your edits to the stable version of the articles. Re WP:Consensus, this layout is clearly used in the vast majority of articles in Category:College football rivalries in the United States. See the essay at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists as helpful. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for incorrect word being used. I guess what I am trying to say is that there are multiple articles that have the series count displayed, so I am not sure what makes an article "stable" or "unstable". Shouldn't the articles in the category all be "stable"? It's not like what I am writing is irrelevant data, so I see the use for it. Is there a way to add the information in a stable way? SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

GAR for West Virginia Mountaineers football

West Virginia Mountaineers football, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 06:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think our favorite guy is back...

User:Stanley Merkel Jweiss11 (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced wonderlic

I only noticed now that you mentioned a specific editor at WT:NFL. It's good that you didn't template a regular. Hopefully they respond or start sourcing. If not, there are templates, and you can revert if you are contesting. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sports leagues disestablished in the 19th century

A tag has been placed on Category:Sports leagues disestablished in the 19th century indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Stray rivalry text

By intent, I recently removed stray "rivalry" text with AWB, where the text was previously a link to a rivalry article which became orphaned by AfD (Del) outcomes. So if I nicked a valid rivalry link, despite attempts to spotcheck, please ping below. I'll fix including review of the 18/19/20XX team articles for both teams. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of major college football winless seasons

added links pointing to 1978 college football season, 1996 college football season, 1994 college football season, 1993 college football season, 1991 college football season, 1989 college football season, 1988 college football season, 1987 college football season, 1984 college football season, 1983 college football season, 1982 college football season, 1981 college football season, 1980 college football season, 1979 college football season, 1973 college football season, 1976 college football season, 1956 college football season, 1957 college football season, 1958 college football season, 1959 college football season, 1960 college football season, 1961 college football season, 1962 college football season, 1965 college football season, 1966 college football season, 1967 college football season, 1968 college football season, 1969 college football season, 1970 college football season and 1971 college football season

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2012 NCAA Division I women's volleyball standings templates

A tag has been placed on Category:2012 NCAA Division I women's volleyball standings templates indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2018 NCAA Division I women's volleyball standings templates

A tag has been placed on Category:2018 NCAA Division I women's volleyball standings templates indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Big Ten Conference. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Linking "competence is required" and thus implying that I am incompetent. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 21:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah, he's a total pain in the ass and is always trying to crow over certain articles, making sure they're never updated even when people provide information to the contrary. --2603:900A:1A0E:6600:964:82D2:1AE9:E6A2 (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of tools

You used tools here with an untrue edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oday_Aboushi&diff=1029273166&oldid=1029255144 --2603:7000:2143:8500:9101:5F31:7B52:6EEB (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You've now I see followed my above comment by making a number of reverts to other articles I've edited, that strike me as weak if any basis. While you cite to wp:lede and wp:seealso, you delete entries that clearly accord with them. Please exercise greater care. Also, as most of your 25 edits made after my complaint were of this sort - are you following me?

--2603:7000:2143:8500:31E2:234C:2CBC:F9F4 (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 1978 college football season, 2006 college football season and 1956 college football season.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hounding warning

Hello. Given your recent editing history, I feel compelled to warn you - while I start by assuming good faith - against hounding me. Your edits indicate that you have followed me, singling me out, on multiple pages that I have edited, to repeatedly confront or inhibit mywork. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress. Given that it followed my above note to you, it does raise the suspicion that my contributions are being followed to cause me distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. If you continue, I will feel compelled to ask for admin assistance, such as from User:Awilley who appears to be knowledgeable in hounding analysis, as the history here is quite blatant. I would hope that it will not come to that, and that you will instead desist. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:31E2:234C:2CBC:F9F4 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You have taken up your hounding of me, yet again. If this continues, I will have to ask that it be addressed by an admin. Please desist. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8C73:ABC0:74AB:56FD (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, UW Dawgs. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Valapariso

Do you want me to remove the valparaiso crusaders logo or no, because they dropped its mascot and crusaders name. PearZane (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Frederick College athletics categories

Hey UW Dawgs. I discovered a newspaper article which verifies Frederick College's nickname as the Lions. I see you created the categories so I wanted to make you aware of a bundled CfR discussion I opened (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 4#Frederick College athletics categories). Thanks. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:19th century in Southern California

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 30#Category:19th century in Southern California. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Grant Fitzpatrick (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grant Fitzpatrick (musician) 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/Grant Fitzpatrick (musician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)