Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Participant list

New to the Crew

What's up everybody. I'm new to the crew and I was hoping I could find out who is in charge of all this or is it just worked out by everybody as a collaborative group? I have started to create Texas State Bobcats football yearly teams articles and I was hoping I could add WikiProject College football to my articles. Also, should I add myself to the participants list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krhazymonkey83 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Active/Inactive

I think the criteria for being inactive is too short. Currently it says 3 weeks. I think something like 3 months would be more appropriate, or at least one month. A vacation could take 3 weeks counting packing for and unpacking, etc. Other thoughts? Johntex\^talk 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, 3 weeks is too short. I support Johntex's recommendation of 3 months.--NMajdan•talk 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 months is fine. I just threw in a value when I wrote it up. z4ns4tsu\^talk 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering?

Should we number the table? It would make it easier to see how many participants we have - but it might be a pain to maintain if people are moving from active --> inactive and back. Johntex\^talk 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the easiest way to do this with tables? Can we still use the # for numbering inside of a table?--NMajdan•talk 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried putting # in the table and that didn't work. So, unless someone finds a trick this may be too difficult to keep up. Johntex\^talk 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CobraGeek unsuited for this group

Getting pretty sick of this CobraGeek character. They have identified themselves as a Clemson University fan in the WikiProject College Football list and if you check their contribs I think it's quite clear there is an anti-USC agenda at work here. Clearly a user who regularly violates NPOV policy and no longer deserves the benefit of the good faith rule. I will be watching this user's edits at all USC-related articles and will remove material that has obvious POV problems.

Treat anything this user says with skepticism, as they have continuously demonstrated clear bias while posting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.37.65 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I have a gamecock stalker

What's ridiculous about this perverse allegation is that I am a USC graduate alumnus (still have my user ID and PW for vip.sc.edu), and there are two degrees from USC hanging on the wall behind the desk that I am now sitting at. Anyone interested in seeing the true nature of user IP 65.188.37.65 please review the IP's history of repeated, uncommented factual content deletions and lack of productive content additions. I don't have to advertise what the agenda is, anyone can easily determine that for themselves. Yes, I am a Clemson Tiger fan, very open and honest about that, openly joined the WikiProject as one under my registered account name. Not trying to hide anything behind an anonymous IP as 65.188.37.65 seems to be. Sorry to have to defend myself from this guy openly on the forum, but I won't let this anonymous IPs allegations go unchallenged. --CobraGeek (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly the forum for such a discussion. This is the talk page for a WikiProject member list. If you have an issue, please discuss it at the main WikiProject talk page.↔NMajdan•talk 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more NMajdan. This just happens to be where the anon user called me out. I apologize again.--CobraGeek (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apologizing, Tater. Couldn't help but notice since you were called out on it that you've tried to make it look like you care more about adding to Clemson's articles than violating the NPOV rule on Carolina's articles. Keep it up. You're being watched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.37.65 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]