User talk:PassionoftheDamon/Archive 1

CFB Football
Hi, and welcome to the College football Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love college football and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Please add WikiProject College football to the talk page and list your new article in the new articles section.
 * Looking for somewhere to help? Please see our article to do list or project to do list

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page. --MECU ≈ talk 20:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wide Right (Florida State)
I reverted your changes back to how I had it. YOu keep trying to distinguish the BCS form the BCS "computers" which does not make sense for purposes of the article. The formula that is used to determine the BCS rankings incorporated polls that were both computer generated and human generated. The BCS itself ranked FSU higher, it was the totality of the formula, not the computers alone, although they played a large part in it. Also, why you want to add that Miami beat FSU twice in one paragraph is beyond me, unless you are just a Miami fan who is trying to exemplify sour grapes. Stating the outcome once is enough, twice is redundant, especially in such a short span of a section.

PS I'm helping out on your 2006 football team page. GREAT start!! Good job. AriGold 17:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I can help. Now, a couple of things about the changes you just made to the 2006 FSU page:

1) You changed the "Pro set" offense to "Veritical pass". FSU is considered by everyone to run a "pro set" offense.  There is no such thing as a "vertical pass" offense. You can proof of that on these pages, . If you need more proof, let me know. 2) You changed Florida State University Seminoles to Florida State Seminoles but there is no reason to, as the name of the link is Florida State University Seminoles, and not the other way. YOu said ""X University" and "University of X" are dropped from the titles of CFB articles" but that does not apply here as there is an actual wikipedia article about the Florida State University Seminoles. Hopefull, to make you happy, I retained the "University" for purposes of the link, but kept the name FS Seminoles, I hope you will approve.

For those reasons I changed them back. AriGold 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed it to pro set, since you said it was ok. Also, I don't think you understand what I did.  I changed the wikipedia link for "Florida State Seminoles" to simply link to "Florida State University Seminoles" but it STILL SAYS Florida State Seminoles.  All I am doing here is making the link correct, that's it.  There is no link for "Florida State Seminoles", it redirects to "Florida State University Seminoles", so what I did is proper wikipedia procedure.  If you want, I can bring in mods to back this up. AriGold 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, PassionoftheDamon. With regards to your comments on Talk:2006 Florida State Seminoles football team: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Accurizer 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * PassionoftheDamon, I performed my own cursory research on the web and found references to "Pro Set" as a formation and also "Pro Set" as a scheme. (I understand this differs from the current Wikipedia article Pro Set, which may need to be amended.) If you are able to provide verifiable sources for "Pro Style", please cite it in the 2006 Florida State Seminoles football team article. Without verifiable sources, it does not satify Wikipedia policy and cannot be kept. Thanks for your understanding. Regards, Accurizer 23:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

AFCA National Championship Trophy
Okay. I agree. You could have changed it yourself, it's not like what I think is the final word. But I do appreciate your efforts in trying to convince me. I've changed it to high. I think that page needs a (free) picture badly. But I don't know what else could go on that page since the list of winners is already on the DI-A NC page. --MECU ≈ talk 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for namecalling? Editing vs. vandalizing Miami Hurricanes football
Removing what looks to me like a peacock phrase ("all-time") is called editing, not vandalizing. I explained the change and have yet to receive a civil counter-reply. Instead, you resort to name-calling and threats. Of course the score is 29-21. My question is why you are calling this "the all-time advantage." It sounds like boosterism. Is there some other reason? Explain that, and I'll drop that particular edit. And you can use the article talk page to do so, which is how editing on wikipedia works. You might familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies on assuming good faith, as well as on peacock terms. Have a nice day.--Anthony Krupp 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should take a look at the definition of "namecalling," as I have yet to call you a name. Referring to a 29-21 advantage in the all-time series between Miami and Florida State is hardly a peacock phrase.  Perhaps you're new to the sports world, but the historical series between two teams is typically called the all-time series, and the team that holds the edge holds the "all-time advantage"      You've been warned.  If you persist in vandalizing the page, you will be reported.-PassionoftheDamon 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You used a verb (vandalizing) rather than a noun (vandal), but you still failed to assume good faith. Your explanation that a historical series is typically called the all-time series completely satisfies me. Thanks for (finally) explaining that. Your rude statement ("You've been warned") is uncalled for, given that I specifically asked you to please explain the term. Your threat is empty, since I have never vandalized that page. People who throw around terms as loosely as you do tend not to fare well here. Good luck with that. -Anthony Krupp 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You vandalized the page, I caught you, that's the end of it. Vandalism is very much not appreciated here at Wikipedia.  Good luck with that.-PassionoftheDamon 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your definition of vandalism is wrong. Ask anyone.-Anthony Krupp 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We both know you vandalized the page and that you're a bad faith editor, offering such illuminating edit summaries as "b.s" and "hardly called for." You're not fooling anyone.  If you expect to have a productive Wiki career, you'd be wise to change your ways.-PassionoftheDamon 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone reasonable who bothers to look at the edits will realize I made a good faith but mistaken attempt to edit the page. That reasonable person will also see that I asked for information about the edit, and after receiving it, left it alone. And my editing history speaks for itself. I have lost interest in your chest-thumping, and will no longer respond to your overtures. I trust we'll both go back to just working to improve wikipedia. Ciao. -Anthony Krupp 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We both know otherwise.-PassionoftheDamon 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3rr violation
I'm blocking you for your silly edit warring over emphasis on the Talk:Miami Hurricanes football page. Since this is your first offense, I'm only making it a 12 hour block. However, regardless of whether you violate 3RR, please avoid edit warring in the future, especially over such a picayune matter. It's not really your place to decide where the emphasis should be placed in other editors' words on a talk page. Nandesuka 13:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

USC Football
Any particular reason you keep reverting the nat'l championship totals in the info box? This seems particularly irresponsible given the lengthy discussion about that issue on the article's talk page. ProfessorFokker 16:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Michigan Wolverines football
Thank you for proceeding to the third party discussion to resolve the content dispute on the Michigan Wolverines football article. I have gone ahead and notified Wolvve85 of this discussion so he can weigh in. Hopefully next time you can try discussing this issue directly with the user directly before provoking/continuing an edit war. Terryfoster 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Nix
Do you know any of the information missing from Patrick Nix's infobox? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

U Miami Userbox
Regarding the template you recently created at UMiamiUser - userboxes in template space should begin with "User." Also, there is already a U Miami userbox. You would be better off to modify or improve the existing box instead of creating a new one. Let me know if I can be of assistance. --NThurston 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider your revision of Userboxes/Education/United States. Your revision has replaced a userbox that is used by many users with a version that is used only by you.  In addition, your userbox does not meet the User xxx naming format (See Userboxes).  I highly recommend that if you do not like the existing userbox, you modify and improve it rather than creating a new one.  --NThurston 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with NThurston and have reverted your reversion of him. --Durin 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason you're ignoring myself and NThurston regarding this issue? --Durin 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to insist on reverting the well reasoned reversion of your edits? Would you please communicate with us? PLEASE? --Durin 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Add me to the list of people confused by PassionoftheDamon's actions. I've reverted as well.  auburn pilot   talk  06:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a side note to my above comment: Instead of replacing a userbox that is already widely used, simply make the changes you believe should be made the the existing one. As a wiki, anyone can edit anything.  auburn pilot   talk  06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (PassionoftheDamon has responded finally on my talk page) Thank you for communicating. Please understand that engaging in a revert war is very negative behavior, most especially when people are attempting to communicate with you. Being dismissive of other people's opinions and refusing to communicate is bound to lead to additional problems. I recommend you avoid this sort of behavior in the future. I'd also like to point out that neither userbox's colors match those of the logos found at either or . Further, your userbox does not follow standard naming conventions. Userboxes have all sorts of verbiage in them and there is no particular standard. The userbox you disagree with also does link to the University of Miami. In short, you're acting on your opinion alone and have been quite reluctant to engage in conversation to build consensus or to achieve an amicable compromise in this dispute. Rather than continue to revert people (and someone has reverted your change, again) I recommend you contact the people listed at  who have the userbox you do not like transcluded, and begin a discussion on the issue, perhaps at Template talk:User University of Miami. --Durin 14:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, wrong on all counts. The colors in the previous userbox did not match the shade of the University of Miami's colors.  What's more, the userbox made no mention of the fact that it was a "University of Miami" userbox (including nothing more than the phrase, "I'm proud to be a 'Cane!").  As the userboxes on that page deal with "education," the userbox should make some mention to the actual university, not just an ambiguous reference to the school's sports nickname.  This proposition is further supported by the fact that just about every other userbox on the page includes language identical to "This user attends or has attended...".  Perhaps if you would have taken the time to compare the prior userbox to the one that it was replaced with, these changes would have been apparent.  But as I stated before, you engaged in egregiously lazy-editing, which is all the more troubling considering you're an administrator.  In the future, it would be a good idea to actually take a look at the changes that were made before reverting.  Otherwise, your reversions, as in this case, are bound to lack a reasoned basis--let alone a "well reasoned" one.-PassionoftheDamon 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed your suggestions on Durin's talk page and find that you are quite reasonable in your request. You probably approached it in a less than efficient manner, however.  In reviewing the history of this userbox, I doubt that anybody would object to your proposals since they seem to fit well with what has already been done.  I have activated the talk page on the original u-box and made some initial edits.  Feel free to add to the discussion and continue to improve the existing userbox.  It would be kind of you to nominate your recent boxes at WP:TfD for speedy delete.  --NThurston 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Irvin87UM-FSU.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Irvin87UM-FSU.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing
Time to kick start this again!?--Vintagekits 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:FSUSeminoleLogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:FSUSeminoleLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. fuzzy510 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees GA/R
New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2007 Newsletter
The December 2007 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Miami Hurricanes Football National Championships
A tag has been placed on Template:Miami Hurricanes Football National Championships requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:UMiamiUser
A tag has been placed on Template:UMiamiUser requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter
The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Suicide mission
Hi, regarding the RfD you started, I have posted User:Sjakkalle/Suicide mission in my userspace in order to have something to build a full article on. At present it is too thin for me to want to drop into the main articlespace, but if you have anything to contribute with so that we can bring it up to standard, that would be very nice. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter
The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jack Swarbrick
A tag has been placed on Jack Swarbrick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mazeau (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Mazeau (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should check the edit history before you accuse people of removing tags. I did not remove your speedy deletion tag; User:Frank did when he saw how blatantly frivolous your nomination was.  And in fact I had, prior to that, added the "contested" tag to the top of the article.  In the future, don't be so overzealous (1) to propose articles for deletion out of your own ignorance of the subject matter, and (2) to accuse others of malfeasance.  I understand that you are new and still learning about how Wikipeida works, but that is still no excuse for your reckless and borish behavior.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Favre
Just to clear some things up:
 * I believe any dispute on Wikipedia is pretty WP:LAME, or in other words "stupid" (i.e To the point of stupor) and I try to stay away from them.
 * I do not WP:OWN this article, nor do I want to. I do not WP:OWN Packers-related articles, nor do I want to.  I am an administrator of this site, and the head of WP:PACKERS.  I do feel that these two positions, although they don't give me formal rights (nor should they), combined with my extensive contributions and experience, should entitle me to at least a little respect and benefit of the doubt when it comes to Packers-related articles and administrative areas.
 * Yes, I am a Packers fan. But really, and this is serious, I do not care if anyone talks crap about the Packers, whether it is true or not.  My brother-in-law talks crap everyday about them to me.  I have no agenda to make the Packers look good.  Seriously, and I want you to understand this, my only concern, and I thought I made this very apparent, was that this section of the article on Brett Favre was too extensive and needed to be trimmed down.  I did not change content to make it more favorable to the Packers.  I removed content that I felt was unneeded.  Personally, I despise the Packers for what they are doing to Favre right now.
 * To be honest, I felt a little disrespected by you. You reverted my edit 1 minute after I made it and failed to come to the talk page until I reverted you.  When I made perfectly reasonable comments, and another admin endorsed my edits, you came and stated my edit was completely wrong, and reverted again.  You were then reverted by that other admin and still came to the talk page like I was attacking you, and you assumed I had some kind of agenda and was trying to bully you, and it was just so annoying.
 * And I would understand the whole bullying thing if it was just me and you disputing things, but another administrator also disputed what you did. I mean I hope you understand that.  Both of us, Zim and I, disagreed with your additions; believe me it is not everyday that an editor gets reverted by two admins in a content dispute.  Next time, if two editors disagree with you, maybe take a second and wonder why.  Maybe
 * The reason I left the page "in a huff," was because you were annoying the crap out of me. This is a hobby for me, and I do not like to get stressed out in my hobby.  I hoped that I just may have gotten my point across, and that you would figure something out, and I knew that in the end, the page will look nothing like the way it does now in the future.  That page is one project that I am going to rewrite completely when Brett finally decides to stop doing stuff that makes big changes.  And yes, this article gets abused a lot by people who do not understand the process, have too strong of opinions, or just want to undermine the article.  I also have little patience for someone who tells me I am wrong in an area I specialize in, especially when another person I respect agrees with me.  I hope you understand this.
 * No offense, but you did not "approach our impasse with a spirit of compromise and collaboration." A spirit of compromise and collaboration does not include the revert, rollback, or undo buttons.  When you see a change you disagree with, you try and fix it, not just revert to the version you like.  That's how consensus works.  You make a small change, then I, then you until we find a good common ground.  But starting the night off with reverting me in one minute was against that spirit.  So please do not try and make me out as some bad guy and you as the innocent good guy.
 * Good luck with the article dude, again I want to reiterate that I really don't care that hard to farther this debate. Best of luck to you.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 07:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we go again with yet ANOTHER rambling, incoherent posting by you in which you insinuate ownership and special privilege over the Brett Favre article by virtue of your affiliation as a Packers fan. I also find more than a little humorous your claim to "specialize" in the "area" of the Green Bay Packers, as if it's some kind of learned discipline beyond the reach of the laity.  We get it -- you're a fan, as are approximately 10 million others; that neither qualifies you as an "expert" or "specialist," nor does it require everyone else to defer to your whimsy when you act like a self-protective, petulant child.  Also, for someone who claims that he "[doesn't] really care that hard [sic] to farther [sic] this dispute," you really do spend an inordinate amount of time fanning the flames with ad hominem attacks and juvenile vulgarities, and trying to make sure you get the last word.  Perhaps next time you'll take heed of your next to last point about how consensus and collaboration works and actually put it into effect.  You curiously speak of how compromise and collaboration "does not include the revert, rollback, or undo buttons," yet those are exactly the tools you used, and actions you took, to start this dispute. Try actually practicing what you claim to preach instead of hypocritically making naked assertions and blanking material every time you disagree with others.  Collaboration is forged through dialogue, not brute force.  You have a ton of maturing to do, both personally and as an "administrator." -PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Brett Favre
You're wrong. You need to read WP:VERIFY, which states that the goal is verifiability and not necessarily truth. The fact is this is can be verified by reputable sources, and hence is worthy of being added to this encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy does not agree with you on this.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right you are. My apologies.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football September 2008 Newsletter
The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football October 2008 Newsletter
The October 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicolle Devenish Wallace and the Katie Couric interview
To my mind there is a difference between (on the one hand) stating in Nicolle Wallace's bio, as an example of her leadership role on the Palin team, that she (Wallace) arranged the interview with her former colleague Katie Couric and (on the other hand) a brief mention later in NW's bio that Sarah Palin was limited to two early interviews, one with  Couric. You have several times deleted the former information, stating that it is "already" in the Nicolle Wallace article, based on a mention of the latter. Why do you consider these two different statements to be equivalent? If they are equivalent, why is the statement about Palin's two interviews more relevant to a biography of Nicolle Wallace than a statement about NW arranging one of the interviews? We have gone back and forth on reverting each other's edits several times now, but I would like to understand your point of view. Questionic 23:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

College football national championships
I wanted to invite you to comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. It's an RFC&mdash;in which I cited some of your past comments & actions&mdash;aimed at re-establishing a consensus on national championship stats in college football infoboxes. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter
The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

CC Sabathia Postseason
Please explain your removal of the postseason stats on the CC Sabathia article. Faethon Ghost (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on College Football logos
Users opposing the use of College Football team logos being used in articles through out the College Football project have filed a Request for Comment trying to ban use of team logos. As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy. It would be appreciated if you could take a moment and voice you opinion on the subject here: RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. Thank you in advance and thank you for your contributions to the College Football Project. (and by the way... go Giants!!)Rtr10 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

New straw poll
You are a user who responded to Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 —  talk 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter
The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Marve's transfer
I reverted the edits you made to the Randy Shannon article, mainly because the sections you put back in were hearsay accusations by a very unreliable Eugene Marve. Since those statements are all based on his (so far false) claims, they are not to be included. Thanks.ObiWan353 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version
As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies
Please note that per WP:EMBED, "Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs." The information you have added is provided in this article and in its daughter articles. Writing it in the article again would be redundant. Please discuss this issue on the article talk page. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Instead of the article talk, I've started a thread at WT:MLB to develop a WikiProject consensus on the issue. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, prose is preferred over lists if at all possible. All of the information that you provided in that table is redundant to the daughter article List of Philadelphia Phillies managers and List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons. I will not edit war with you over this since you have previously been blocked for edit warring; please contribute to the discussion at WT:MLB. When it concludes and consensus is reached, I will proceed as per the results of that discussion and would hope that you will do the same. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize if anything I said may have been misconstrued as bad faith; it was not my intent. However, please know that the use of large words and your law degree don't intimidate me; this is about discussion and consensus. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, big words don't intimidate me, and I haven't made any "attacks". I also don't WP:OWN the article; in fact, it says that on the talk page. I don't view you as an interloper (and please don't accuse or presume to know my "feelings"), but I'm not seeing any basis in policy for the inclusion of these tables, only for their exclusion. I've provided examples and a policy-base rationale, yet apparently that isn't enough. Your comments on my talk page are unwarranted, as I've made no violations of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have indeed disclosed your law degree on your userpage, so point one is moot; however, I have not belittled you in any way by noting your use of large words. I simply am noting to you that using them will not get me to drop a complaint based in policy. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not intimidated, as I said. It makes no difference to me what words you use. Accusing me of personal insecurity and other issues may border on a WP:CIVIL problem though. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is closed. If you wish to discuss policy, I'll be available on WT:MLB. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 23:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)