User talk:Scrooster

I disagree with you concerning the 'Division I Champions by Conference (Current Alignment)' section that I added to the College World Series Page. Your comment was 'attempt at bolstering PAC 12 perception of total titles. There is no "overall" vs "current" and the attempt alone is ambiguous.)' If you click into my links for each conference, the integrity of the data is supported. Your links do not have this integrity. Please reconsider.

The section you are referring to is taken directly out of the NCAA Records Book as cited. There are not "overall" vs "current" categories in the NCAA record books. They are very succinct about "at the time the championships were won." There can be no padding a conference's titles totals due to expansion. Also, if you will please, sign comments on my page so I have the privledge of knowing who it is that I am talking with. Thanks. Eta: Listen, when you can cite a "current alignment" reference by a reputable source, specifically the NCAA, then the category may be added to the article. Otherwise your attempt is redundant. If someone wishes to see what a program did, specifically the titles they won, prior to expansion or prior to joining a particular conference, there are other categories where they may view the years in which the titles were won, then reference the current category and the citations below it for explanations. It is well documented. If you would like to elevate your contention then feel free to, but, in the meantime, if you attempt to add the redundant, ambiguous category again, (current alignment titles), then I will elevate it personally and request to have you blocked from editing the page. I don't want to do that, but the facts are the facts and the record book is the gospel. Did you even bother reading the link to the NCAA record book? Do you not realize that if there were issues with how the titles are listed, by conference, the conferences themselves would contend the listings with the NCAA? We're not in the business of making-it-up as we go on Wiki. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Scrooster (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand not updating the College World Series page until the Super Regionals are over, but I was merely deleting a duplicate version of Indiana that someone else had already posted. So, that's fine to wait to delete that, but shouldn't all the versions of Indiana be deleted at this time then? jlc20me

Yes, you are correct. Did I not remove all Indiana dupes at the time? Where is an Indiana reference that you are referring to and let's get it out of there until after all the Super Regionals are decided. I'll go back and peruse the article now for the duplicate reference. Scrooster (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the CollegeGameday entry ... seriously, you changed my color scheme? Dude, it's 2012; are you still caught up with the notion that pink hues being a "girl's" color? My use of magenta was not a slight to the SEC. I was merely going for bold colors that would stand out. Belmontian37 (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, seriously, pink is a girl's color and no, pink will not be allowed on that page. You did not use "magenta," you used "pink." Big difference. There is nothing about college football, not any conference, that deserves to be pink. And I am not your "dude." And use proper formatting when leaving messages on my page if you don't mind. Regards Scrooster (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

To explain why I reverted your recent deletion, please note that GarnetAndBlack and I reached a consensus to keep the number of notable games balanced to be equal wins between the two teams plus the results of the most recent game each year. This agreement was to maintain an impartiality in the notable games section.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - it is much appreciated. I was not notified of this contrib to my talk page until after I had already left a contribution on your talk page - or, more apropos, probably while I was editing the Carolina Clemson rivalry page and, in turn, leaving my explanation on your talk page. It took some time and was done under the guise that you had failed to leave this message, which was not showing when I initially received notice of your undo. I hope we can reach an understanding, and continue to work together on the page. I edited to maintain balance, and I understand the need, but at the same time the article needed to be brought back into some form of acceptable standard without all the disambiguation. Shall we reach some sort of agreement that we talk about edits to the rivalry article from this point forward, in advance of actually performing and executing them to save one another's time? It might work. If you are game, then so am I. Also, while we are on the subject we need to plan for the possibility, the eventuality even, that this season's game could be the highest ranked game in the series thus far and would illicit the need to delete the current highest ranked game entry while, at the same time, it would be notable insomuch as, not only would it be the highest ranked game but also the last game played in the series ... with the question being, how should it be denoted as such? "Last meeting - highest ranked game?" Scrooster (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Shall we reach some sort of agreement that we talk about edits to the rivalry article from this point forward, in advance of actually performing and executing them to save one another's time? It might work." Agreed. Any way you can get GarnetAndBlack to agree to the same terms?--LesPhilky (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also agreed on the "Last meeting - highest ranked game" should both teams continue their success up until Nov. 24.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I will try with GarnetandBlack. He seems like an good editor - extremely passionate where this rivalry is concerned and evidently a staunch anti-Tillman man, which I can relate to quite honestly, with regard to Tillman. Scrooster (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding section to the rivalry page on the recent banterings between Swinney and Spurrier since it has brought new energy and fire to the rivalry. How do you feel about this?--LesPhilky (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You read my mind. I was talking to a friend, still active and credentialed, about the recent back-and-forths since the Dabo video prior to the 2012 Orange Bowl ... it is worth doing and notable to the rivalry. In all my years, and I date back to the Dietzel-Parker years, I've never witnessed anything like this between the two HCs. They are providing us with plenty of content. The only issue I might see in advance would be who said what first, and what started it all. Would the genesis of the feud not be the Todd Ellis comments wrongly attributed to Spurrier, and we go from there? Or would you have another starting point in mind? Scrooster (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it begins with the Todd Ellis incident, but I'll check further back and see if there was any other prior needling between the two.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Still going to do this section soon, but just haven't had time lately. Just so we're on the same page, since we're both likely to win this weekend, we're going to remove the 1987 highest-ranked matchup and replace it with this year's, correct?--LesPhilky (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - on the same page. Combined ranking (20) of the '87 match-up was AP I am assuming? Right now it, the AP combined ranking, is what, 23? Or do we switch to the BCS Poll for a combined ranking which, at the moment, is 20? I've been busier than the proverbial one-legged man in a butt kicking contest myself. Plus I have a question about the section describing the Gamecock riding the Tiger than caused the riot. Are we sure the Gamecock was holding the tail of the tiger rather that holding a whip? Scrooster (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I always thought it was a whip but I haven't seen it in quite some time.--LesPhilky (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Early Years: 1896-1902 section states that the Gamecock was holding the Tiger's tail - although I have never heard that before, or read it for that matter, yet I assumed whomever it was that penned that line must have drawn it from a reliable source? All of the reproductions of the poster that I have seen have the Gamecock holding a whip. Therefore, I feel uncomfortable including the graphic of the poster in question when the description of the event does not gee haw with the visual. Also, I need help uploading a photo and posting it to the page. Frankly, I've forgotten how to accomplish the task - guess I am getting older or something. Scrooster (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yo, I finally got around to adding the coaches' spats on the rivalry page. I added it under the notable games section. Take a look at what I did and see if you feel some changes need to occur, or if I missed anything. Thanks.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just returned home from the holidaze. I logged in to see G&B has already undone the edit - so I guess I need to get some sleep and read the entire entry tomorrow and see what riled him into removing it. Barley able to keep my eyes open right now but I promise to check-it-out in the next 48 hrs. Gotta catch-up around here tomorrow. Scrooster (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but please make changes if you see it doesn't read that way. He deleted it because he doesn't think it's relevant. Please encourage him to engage in a discussion about this rather than deleting each and every thing I add. This is falling back into that old ownership problem.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking this discussion to the Talk page since G&B thinks our consensus isn't valid unless we do it there.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe we put the coaches' battles on the back page for now? What do you think? There is a case to be made that if we do it for these two, then we need to do it for Carlen/Ford, Dietzel/Parker, et al. Plus, and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like Dabo and SOS have sort-of put the whole thing to bed in advance of us attempting to note it within the article. And honestly, the way you wrote it, I can see how G&B could find it a little unbalanced - the whole timeline, the lack of voice inflection and facial expression afforded Dabo when he ranted, when translated to the written word. The short spat between Spurrier and Dabo fails to belay what led up to it - and if we have to go there then we have to get into the Brad Scott/Tommy Bowden dynamic, some of the things that were said by Scott on the recruiting trail, etc. There is just no way to do it in one article, in one section of one article, imho. What do you think? Probably better to just not do it? I'm leaning that way right now unless we really approach some of the background of the feud and delve deeper into the psychology of it all. Scrooster (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Still doesn't excuse G&B's behavior and lack of respect for you and me, but I see the point.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bingo, Rooster. You nailed it. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I looked at the last IP edit to this page and I think its ok actually. If two conferences are tied for third, the next one would be fifth, not fourth. Let me know what you think. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Heck Bill, you're right. My bad. I guess I need to be a little more awake - these anon edits, some of the subsequent undos and late game changes have me seriously sleep deprived at the moment. But the anon editor and you are 100% correct. Darn it, I created that section and didn't get it right from the get-go - how did I miss that? I'll undo my undo right now. Thanks for the heads-up and double-checking the IP. I've been gunshy lately. Scrooster (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You're fine, I've done it too. Thanks for keeping a close eye on the page, it's obviously the biggest time for vandalism there. You've done a great job with that. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey man. Just thought I'd let you know before I revert, it is actually officially named Historic Riggs Field by Clemson. In fact, the physical mailing address lists it as Historic Riggs Field. Here's some more info on it: Historic Riggs Field. --LesPhilky (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Les. Long time. I understand your misunderstanding given the title of the header graphic and the address on the official Clemson website but all of that notwithstanding "historic" remains an adjective used to describe Riggs Field located at Clemson, named after Walter Merit Riggs. In order for you to have it changed within Wikipedia you're going to have to jump through some hoops with the higher-ups and cite some official sources which must include the date of the official name change from Riggs Field to Historic Riggs Field. You're going to have a hard time proving it given no official reference to the facility as "Historic Riggs Field" in the body of the descriptive provided on the official Clemson Athletics website. As a matter of fact, even on Clemson's official website which you cited, the facility is referred to as "Riggs Field" no less than five (5) times. I understand what you are after here and it's not that I totally disagree with your goodnatured intent, it's just that the "historic" reference lends itself to be not provable in the stricter (mind you not strictest) sense of our guidelines. You must first lobby to have the Riggs Field wiki article changed without challenge, before you will be able to change it within our rivalry article. BTW, congrats on the big win over UGA! Scrooster (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you've been well. It can be proven, but honestly, I don't have the time or the energy lately to pursue something that minute. The official name is Historic Riggs Field, though.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, FWIW Les, I called Clemson and spoke to one of the assistant SIDs up there and she told me they do refer to it as "Historic Riggs Field" but she is not sure that it was changed on the charter or the deed. She could not cite, or offer anything we could use as a citation, the date of the name change or an official ceremony or any paperwork on what the motivation was beyond the fact that several college soccer firsts have occurred there over the past few decades, along with the fact that it was evidently used as a football field prior to WWII. She said she would try to find out though and asked me to call her back a week from today - which I will. In the meantime we do still have the minutes from the July of 2011 meeting that took place in Charleston between Clemson's BoTs. The problem with using that citation is that, if you do, then it would more accurately be referred to as "Dr. I.M. Ibrahim Stadium at Historic Riggs Field." If we wanted to go that route to have the entire Riggs Field article within wikipedia changed, then that might be doable friend. It's up to you but it is probably worth doing. Say the word and we'll give it a go and see what happens. Scrooster (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's cool. What do I need to do? Sorry. Work has been kicking my butt lately.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I have gleaned it is going to take quite a effort on your part. First you'll have to completely rewrite and then reorganize the current wiki article in Riggs Field to read "Dr. I.M. Ibrahim Stadium." You'll have to include some background on the coach, making it the focal point of the article, while referring to his personal article, then include why the stadium was changed to his name in 2011. Then a sub chapter within the article explaining how Riggs Field was changed to Historic Riggs Field in 2011 as well and be sure to cite the minutes of the meeting in Charleston. But, since Riggs Field is located within "Dr. I.M. Ibrahim Stadium," ... that's the way to go. Why? Because Clemson BoTs chose to do it that way so one is incorporated within the other. They upped the perceived worth of the field, for PR purposes, by adding the adjective "historic," but at the same time lessened its presence by renaming the stadium "Dr. I.M. Ibrahim Stadium." It was sort of a "have the cake and eat it too," move. It would be like renaming ... well, like Danny Ford Field at Memorial Stadium or Steve Spurrier Field at Williams-Brice Stadium. It wouldn't change the fact that the stadium name rules ... the field becomes the afterthought or, in essence, the subchapter or subdivision of the parent. "The field within the stadium is named ..." It's a very rare, almost frowned upon, thing in sports evidently. I've done some research and when they wanted to honor Bear Bryant at Bama they didn't name the field after him ... they changed the name of the stadium to Bryant-Denny Stadium from its previous name of Denny Stadium. Dyche Stadium at Northwestern was changed to Ryan Field ... they completely dropped Dyche. Carolina Stadium, the old baseball facility at Carolina, was changed to Sarge Frye Field ... the BoTs dropped Carolina Stadium altogether. As I hinted, it is like the BoTs at Clemson were trying to have their cake and eat it too. It's gonna make for a tough article upgrade and you'll probably be contested and reverted and undone at every turn trying to get it right ... so be prepared going-in to spend a lot of time and frustration on the effort. But it can be done. If you want an example of how you might pull it off check Ben Hill Griffin Stadium for some ideas. Compare it to the current article Riggs Field and you will see the major differences and where you need to start. Good luck. :) Scrooster (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to give you a shout that I've made a suggestion on the Georgia-South Carolina football rivalry talk page and would appreciate your insight, since you've been one of the more heavily-involved editors on that article. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads-up. :) Headed there now. Scrooster (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:South Carolina Marsh Tacky horse.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have the email from the cite owner, the same one I obtained originally before uploading the pic, but I took it one step further asking him to contact the owner of the horse that provided the picture to him for use on his site - and that is where we are stalled (pardon the pun). He says he has both emailed and called her (the horse's owner) but his messages have yet to be returned. If this all comes together I'll upload it again, no problem. The article is in need of a picture for the breed, it's simply a matter of time before I manage to jump through the extra hoops. Thanks :) Scrooster (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The material you added on Weinstein's comments on gun control and health care are already covered--and better summarized--in the paragraph directly above the one you added, and it even cites the exact same source you did.

In addition, Wikipedia content needs to be written in language that is both formal and neutral. Any language that constitutes an opinion or viewpoint should be explicitly attributed to the reliable source that is cited to support it, and not presented in Wikipedia's voice as if it is fact, as you did with the phrases "botched" (which is slang, and conveys a viewpoint), and "roll-out" (which is slang).

Also, there is no indication in the cited sources that Weinstein's comments have generated a "controversy". Care must be taken to make sure that sources in question support the material you add to articles.

Lastly, this is just a minor point, but spaces are not placed in front of citations, as indicated by WP:PAIC.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nightscream :) So then, the issues are placement of the addition to the article - perhaps better parked in "Praise and criticism" where I see, there are no criticisms? Ok.

Additionally you would like to see the entry written in a more formal and neutral tone, with zero use of any form of slang, correct?

And finally, you would prefer far more, varied, citations supporting the controversy generated by his comments? Will do.

BTW, "botched" is past tense of "botch" (verb) roughly defined by Mr. Webster as to carry-out (a task) badly or carelessly. So no, it is not slang for anything in particular. Even when put to use in its noun form it remains basically the same, a bungled or badly carried-out task, as in to botch something ... which certainly applies to the so-called affordable health care act, does it not?

The entry into the Weinstein article is not to further illustrate his propensity towards shock-talk activism, nor is it an effort to further glorify any of his actions, but rather the entry is necessary to fairly highlight controversial remarks made by Mr. Weinstein during the course of another CNN appearance. How we go about doing that is up to you. Will you help me or are you going to fight the addition tooth and nail?

I ask you, should reference to the comments be moved to "Praise and criticism?" And sincerely, thank you for your help and direction in advance. I'll do my best to follow your lead and comply to all of your suggestions. Scrooster (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a list of all OT games in Division I FBS history, and I came across the article NCAA football overtime records. In the notes, you put this link: http://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_records.php?fry=1800&thy=2013&ot=on&sortby=GP&cres=1 , and said it led to a list of all OT games. Well, the site this link goes to seems to be dead, because it has no information that I can find. Anyway, do you have any idea where I could find this info, or maybe you could explain how to use this site? Kobra98 (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Refer back to the home page and you can access the entire data base and choose which fields are relevant to your needs. It appears he had a data base melt down since your attempt, but he has since restored it evidently. Hope that helps. http://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_menu.php Scrooster (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The site is still down, but I got in contact with him, and he's getting me the info I need. Kobra98 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. You're welcome. Regards Scrooster (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)