User talk:LesPhilky

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memorial Stadium, Clemson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Davis and Gameday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I think you've been quite reasonable on the ANI thread, which is great. I'm glad that you are trying to resolve all these problems you brought up. Clearly the two of you have strong loyalties to opposing teams in a rivalry, which leads to you having different opinions of what is 'neutral' information that should be included in articles. This is fine, those sorts of disagreements help us make the page more neutrally written. However what can't happen is the development of a "you vs them" mentality, which leads to personal attacks, harassment, and all these other problems. That has definitely happened here. Your part has to be to avoid contributing to this battleground mentality, even if you don't 'fire the first shot', so to speak. Report personal attacks instead of responding to them, and don't try to attack GarnetAndBlack with biting remarks and such. If you can do that, then we can look at a solution other than removing you both from the source of the fire (i.e. a topic ban). Prodego talk  06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, doesn't look like that solution is being seriously considered if you look at the current proposal that's been floated at the ANI thread. Very disappointing, to say the least. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will use better judgment in the future to avoid the back-and-forth spats and will report where necessary. I'm sorry for the headaches.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of the four points discussed in the 'revised wording':


 * 1) User:LesPhilky and User:GarnetAndBlack are hereby subject to a formal interaction ban, and all restrictions noted in that policy for a period of 6 months;
 * 2) Both are topic-banned from the article or talkpage of Carolina-Clemson rivalry for a period of 6 months;
 * 3) Both are prohibited from editing any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months, although changes may be proposed on the associated talkpage in order to obtain consensus;
 * 4) Both are subject to civility restrictions during all discussions, including being prohibited from making derogatory comments directly or indirectly about universities, their sports teams, and the athletes involved indefinitely
 * There is definitely agreement on 1,2, and 4. 3 is a bit trickier, I could probably reasonably say there is consensus for that as well. However, since both you and Garnet agreed with the principles of 1,2, and 4, I'd be willing to let you guys handle this matter on a voluntary basis, with no formal action. If there are any problems, you can come to me. How does that sound? (and if you could alert Garnet to this discussion that would be great) Prodego  talk  17:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Prodego talk  00:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your case at DRN
Unless someone responds there by tomorrow, Dec 2nd, then I am planning to close the case. Let me know what you want to do. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 01:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding at DRN. I'm glad to hear you are making progress in other discussions. Keep up the good work! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please consult proveit?
Are you kidding me? maybe YOU should read it. It says, in bold print: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. that would be you sparky. It's not my job to go search out the source because you're too lazy to do it. But I DID check most of the existing sources to make sure it wasn't in one of those. Save your attempts at being snarky for someone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My intention was not to be snarky but to point out that it's an easy fix. A Google search of "Sammy Watkins" and "major" easily produces the result. The spirit of Wikipedia is to create a thorough, complete encyclopedic work. The previous editor removed the major information without any explanation. Now, consider this. There are a LOT of college football players' Wiki pages that list their majors with no source. Are you personally going to either A. add a source for them or B. delete them all? Why is your interest in just Sammy Watkins' page?


 * Here's my point. It isn't necessary for people to just remove information without further examination or effort. While WP:PROVEIT might put the burden of proof on the editor who adds or restores, you and I both know it isn't that simple. It also asks that editors give time to add the info or to seek the info out instead of removing. For example, the South Carolina football page a few weeks ago listed them as having 15 consensus All Americans all-time. This is ridiculously false and was, of course, unsourced. Rather than just remove it altogether and cite it as unsourced, I took the time to seek out the real answer, correct it, and add the source. It takes a little more effort, but then again, it's only a LITTLE more effort.


 * I hope you understand where I'm coming from. There isn't a need for hostility. Have a good one.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If I decide to edit other player's pages, I'll concern myself with what is or is not sourced there. So no, I won't go source them all or delete them all. Your suggestion is absurd. My interest? Unlike you, I'm not a recent visitor to the page. Maybe I should ask what your interest is. In the end, policy backs me up. No matter how much you try to justify it, telling me to do your work for you won't fly. If you add it, back it up. If you can't/won't, then don't add it. And don't misquote a policy to make it sound like I'm going against policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're getting way too upset over this for a grown man. I mean, you called me "sparky". Really? Really? C'mon man. This isn't a big deal. I mean, you removed the specifics of Sammy's pro announcement date on the page just to send a message to me. C'mon. Let's calm down a bit.
 * My interest is pretty simple: I'm a Clemson alum. I'm not a recent visitor to Sammy's page; I'm just a recent editor to it. But time spent editing the page does not equal validity. I'm not misquoting the policy. It clearly states, "If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Now, when you reverted it, you said, "May be factual". Well, that means you thought the material might be verifiable. So there ya go. I'm not sure what I did to stir up your ire, but judging by your profile, you seem like too experienced of an editor to get this upset. Cheers to your Scottish ancestry, firearm love, and Star Wars. I think we'd get along just fine in real life.--LesPhilky (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, are you for real? You think "sparky" is "upset"? It's not different than "dude", "sport" or whatever. You give yourself way too much credit if you think you're getting me upset. And no, I didn't remove the specifics to sent you a message. I edited it to make it encyclopedic and addressed your mini-lecture in the edit summary. Recent editor, recent visitor...now you care about semantics? You DID misquote the policy when you presented it in the context you did. You made it sound like I'm required to do something and failed to do it. I did look to see if the existing sources said it. (In the process, I found some of the sources no longer existed.) But in the end, you are required to source it, not me. You did, which is great. What you did not need to do was try to lecture me in the edit summary. At most, you should have put it on the talk page or even my talk page. Instead, you make it a lecture in a place that can't really be responded to. Kind of passive-aggressive. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're making a big deal out of nothing (and you are clearly upset). It was not my intention to insinuate that you were required to source it; rather, I was pointing to the policy that says a user should try to find a citation if he or she thinks it might be available (which I believe you did think that). I didn't see the need to sully up your talk page over it. I figured the edit summary would suffice. I invite you to also peruse these pages: WP:Good Faith and WP:Civility. My intentions are not to be confrontational with you. I hope that you will feel the same way and we can move forward.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I clearly state that I'm not upset and you have the audacity to tell me what I'm "really" feeling, you lose any right to point anyone at AGF. You're apparently incapable of realizing that your edit summary is what started this whole conversation. When you tried using the edit summary to lecture me, AGF went out the window. You cherry picked part of the policy and used it as a club in a space where discussion isn't easily conducted. That's not civil, instead it stifles discussion and creates a bad faith atmosphere. You know what else comes across as passive aggressive? Telling experienced editors to "peruse" AGF and Civility. I don't think you're dumb enough to believe that I have edited here for all these years and never read them. So instead of being direct, you do the 'oh, maybe these would help you' routine. Something some people don't realize about AGF is that it isn't a suicide pact. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming "AGF" means something with good faith. What I'm asking is that you assume good faith, which was my intention. I did not intend any ill will or attack on you. If you're an experienced editor and have read those sections, then clearly you understand your animosity towards me is out of line. Obviously we have started out on the wrong foot. What can we do to improve the situation and move forward from here?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AGF= WP:AGF= Assume good faith. Listen to yourself: "if you're an experienced editor....."? Seriously? You set up a false premise, then tell me what I should conclude. "IF" I am? Well, I've been here over 3 years longer than you and over 26,000 edits. So yeah, I AM experienced. There is no "if" about it. And I have read them, but I don't arrive at the same conclusion as you. Why? Because I stop assuming good faith when you stop demonstrating it on your end. It's that simple. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tried to be polite here and work with you. You clearly have no interest in doing so, and your experience as an editor does not show in your rudeness. Having more experience does not excuse the behavior, and it clearly does not teach it as well, nor does it give you more validity over my editing. I am now asking you to cease posting on my talk page and to instead move forward on future content issues per WP:Civility. I have nothing further to discuss with you unless it relates to page content.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

UNC-SCAR Rivalry
Hey man, I see you frequently edit articles about Clemson and South Carolina. Check out the article i've been working on, North Carolina-South Carolina football rivalry. Thought maybe you'd be interested. ESSE QUAM VIDERI!CarolinaBlue (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)CarolinaBlue (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I am, unfortunately, quite busy at the moment and likely would not be able to contribute meaningfully. I do wish you luck. Perhaps I can help in the future when things calm down.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this was going to blow up. Thank you anyways.CarolinaBlue (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Article talk page
I see that you commented on the Clemson football talk page to User:Boomer Vial. I have not seen any others yet, but you are welcome to review a consensus and compromise discussion concerning old edit-warred content and a resolution. It has been added to the top of the section. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to when I have more time. To be honest, though, I may not have the energy to deal with the edit-warring Gamecocks who have a personal obsession with the Clemson articles. I've done it before and it's not very enjoyable.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Nit Picking Over Records
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE issues aside, the 2018 media guide has W-L records through the conclusion of the 2017 season. If wish to update this section with 2018 game results (Furman), that content becomes unsourced. Options including locating a current citation for each opponent (which you've now removed three times without addressing), or if you wish to use the 2018 media guide, then leaving the Furman and other 2018 opponent records as-is until the 2019 media guide is published and supports the 2018 game results. Continuing blank these tags and insert unsourced content is not an option. What say you? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The media guide has the win-loss record vs. Furman, and Clemson just defeated Furman this weekend. That means you add 1 to the win column. Are we really going to split hairs here?--LesPhilky (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The section has been updated to reflect the offered citation. I again encourage you to ensure your edits comport with policy including as stated at WP:UNSOURCED and that you do not blank maintenance tags without addressing the issue, as that behavior is clearly WP:DE. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My edits reflected sourced material. I'm restoring back to what it was before you and another anonymous editor engaged in the edit war that got the page semi-protected. The media guide shows the win streak and the last time the teams met. I've added the recent source for the Furman game, which is unnecessary, but done to placate you and possibly prevent future edit warring. Please do not engage in further edit warring or removing sourced, factual information. I will seek admin assistance if it occurs again.--LesPhilky (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clemson–South Carolina rivalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trevor Lawrence ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina_rivalry check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina_rivalry?client=notify 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) 09:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clemson Tigers football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2019 Fiesta Bowl ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Clemson_Tigers_football check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Clemson_Tigers_football?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

COVID and Clemson
I know very well what it says in NOTNEWS. I could counter your revert (your third) by refbombing it: one could cite dozens and dozens of sources reporting it and the possible repercussions. Claiming that the content is POV is silly (there's no way you can prove it), and complaining about edit warring is even sillier, considering that you are at 3R. For your benefit, I'll place a notification below. As for neutrality--Clemson is all you edit, so that you'd remove this information kind of fits a pattern, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit is POV for the following reasons. 1. The "despite risk of cardiovascular" stuff insinuates Dabo knew about this risk, yet the link you posted was from Aug. 11. How was he supposed to know the risk when the study hadn't been conducted yet? 2. You're an Alabama fan, yet you haven't gone to the Alabama page to post the same thing about Nick Saban, who continued to hold voluntary workouts just like Swinney after his players tested positive. 3. The sections you're posting in are for season-end results and accomplishments on the field. It's not regarding news reports about the coronavirus. If you think it's worthy to change on ALL college football pages where this happened (since Clemson wasn't the only one), take it to the talk page and build a discussion consensus. Do not edit war and litter the page with POV posts. And what I choose to edit is inconsequential. I stick with what interests me, and have worked to prevent vandalism like yours, which is false POV claiming the coach knew cardiovascular risks when he did not.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "And what I choose to edit is inconsequential. I stick with what interests me"
 * Which would be fine if you weren't pushing a PoV. You're way too involved. 2607:FEA8:3BA0:4220:C02B:D270:4669:E985 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Get out of here, son, with a reply to something two years later. LesPhilky (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then tweak it. It would have helped if you had mentioned that before. Yes, I'm an Alabama fan. So what? Your comparison is completely crooked--you can start making some POV argument when I cut content from that article. Here, tell me how I'm POV editing. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because when you don't try to make the same changes for your coach and team when the same thing happened, yet rush to the team and coach of your biggest talent rival in college football, it's suspect. Next, let's examine your words. "During the 2020 preseason, thirty-seven players had tested positive for the coronavirus by August 7th.In spite of the risk of cardiovascular damage to his players, Swinney chose to continue holding team workouts." First, it wasn't by Aug. 7; they were reported on June 26 to have it. Next, the workouts were voluntary workouts and the players made the choice to hold them. But the biggest problem is the "In spite of the cardiovascular risk...". It wasn't determined such a risk existed back in mid June, which is when the workouts happened. Your wording insinuates Dabo knew the cardiovascular risk and forced players to participate.
 * If you want to simply leave it at "37 Clemson players tested positive for coronavirus" and maybe also include how Xavier Thomas will miss the season because of it, that would work. And it works because it simply states the facts. You were right that the fluff language about high hopes, etc., was POV... but if you think that's POV and yours isn't, well, that's just bias. Stick to the simple facts. And it doesn't belong on Swinney's actual page.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did leave it at that, so you're welcome. I didn't "leave" anything on Swinney's article; in fact I warned the IP editor. Also something you could have done. And now you are reinserting this shit about how Clemson is famous for their fucking fight song and helmet? A bunch of dumb cliches? I don't know if you had much credibility to begin with, but it's gone now. It's already a crap article and you're just making it worse. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Post another insulting and rude comment on my talk page, and you will be reported for WP:CIV. Since the exact same language was posted on Swinney's page and reverted the same time you did yours, it could only be assumed you did that as well. If not, sorry for the assumption. However, as we've seen, your initial revert was to restore POV content that I had to explain to you how it was POV (which you've now pretty much admitted was). The stuff you reverted after that was likely out of spite, and it was sourced information. Yes, in college football, Clemson is well known for those traditions and pageantry, just as Alabama is for the same, which is covered in Wikipedia.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Clemson/SC
Hello! Please refrain from accusing editors of vandalism (WP:GOODFAITH). Removing unsourced content is not vandalism, and I did not remove ANY sourced content. I have restored the content for now with cn and bcn tags, feel free to add sources. glman (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I will, and I'm sorry for the accusation, but this is a page that has been worked on for years by multiple people and a consensus has been built to add that content. Please discuss next time before just deleting it. LesPhilky (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)