User talk:Scrooster

Welcome!

Hello, Scrooster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

College World Series
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)

College Gameday entry
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)

Notable games
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)

Coaches' battles
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)

CWS
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)

Historic Riggs Field
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)

Georgia-South Carolina rivalry
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)

File permission problem with File:South Carolina Marsh Tacky horse.jpg
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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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)

Harvey Weinstein
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)

Overtime games
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)

= Request for Comment = There's currently an ongoing discussion on the Talk page over the history section of the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article, and as you've been a fairly regular editor there in the past, I thought I'd give you a heads-up should you want to lend your opinion. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies ... been out of town. I'll head over there right now and check-it-out but I have to admit, I have been frustrated with that article.  I think we're eventually going to have to appeal to higher-ups, leap-frog over the UNC/ACC biased editor that has supported Les in the past, and hope for the best outcome possible. Scrooster (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Edited to add. Les is going too far.  Here's what we need to do.  How far are you from Columbia?  What we need to do is the two of us meet, burn perhaps half a day, down at the Richland County Public Library pulling what we'll need to put this guy in his place and stop his nonsense.  I've spent quite a bit of time down there researching a book I'm currently working-on that is not Rivalry related in any way, but I will arrange my schedule around yours, if you are interested, so that we might both be there to gather what we need to put this issue with Les to rest once and for all.  I've seen the material.  If Les wants to play this game then he'll have to suffer the consequences of the additions and revisions we'll make to other articles he holds near and dear.  His current attempts at revisionist history, by demanding all these citations, questioning relevance and splitting hairs, is hypocritical on his behalf.  If he continues to push to open the can of worms he is shaking-up right now, then we need to oblige him and hit him with so many citations and so much historical fact regarding the Rivalry and Clemson A&M, that he spends all of his time trying to remove some of the far less flattering aspects of his school's and program's history than he is going to be willing to live-with. He's wasting our time defending the facts right now.  We'll put the burden back on him and force him to try to defend the indefensible.  At any rate, I just added comments to the talk page of the article - I'm hoping he comes to his senses and does not force me to really paint a clear historical picture of Clemson A&M and its beginnings. Why he is forcing us to go there is beyond my comprehension.  We've been very accommodating to him thus far IMHO. He appears to be one of those people that, if you give him an inch he'll try to take a mile. Scrooster (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll invite you to review WP:CIV, WP:NPOV, and WP:CON. Your comments and hostility clearly show that your intentions are not in the interest or spirit of Wikipedia but rather to advance outside interests. Please let me know if we can settle it like adults after you've read the links or if we need to bring in admin involvement.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Les, I was reading WP:CIV, WP:NPOV, and WP:CON before you even knew what the WWW was - so you do whatever you feel necessary regarding this continued threat of yours, of "bring(ing-)in admin involvement (sic). lulz - sheeeesh - you are a card Les. Scrooster (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also assuming in your crusade of biased editing that you'll take the time to mention that all of the Univ. of South Carolina's founders were slave owners, correct?--LesPhilky (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely comical that one of the most biased editors I've ever had the displeasure to deal with is accusing someone else of biased editing. Your entire history on this project has been an unending crusade of whitewashing, sanitizing, and revisionist history POV-pushing in a desperate effort to make Clemson University look like more than USC's little brother. Your outside interests have been made clear from your first day here, and have never been in the spirit of Wikipedia, otherwise you'd have long ago taken my advice to improve articles that deal solely with Clemson. Have you looked at the main article for the school lately? It's an absolute embarrassment. That "Traditions" section which makes up an inordinately large fraction of the article deals with almost nothing but examples dealing with athletics, which seems strange given how "superior" you people are always claiming Clemson's academics to be. And no one needs to mention that the founders of USC were slave owners, because at the time of the school's founding, slavery was legal in this country, and thus the founders of nearly any institution in the Antebellum South likely owned slaves. So what is Clemson's excuse for proudly displaying the name of one of the state's most notorious bigots on their campus' landmark building? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have worked on articles that deal solely with Clemson, although I don't have a lot of time lately. And I think the history of outside parties coming to the pages and correcting you shows which one of us is blatantly biased. So SC's founders being slave owners is cool because it was legal? That's an interesting rationale. Are you claiming SC doesn't have any buildings named after racists?--LesPhilky (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we get it, you only have time to tenditiously edit and POV-push at the Carolina-Clemson article. You clearly don't give a damn how shoddy the article about your precious university is. If that doesn't sum up the attitude of the majority of the Clemson fans I know, I don't know what does. And no one has "corrected" me on a single thing with regard to the articles that I edit. Don't confuse successful Wiki-lawyering and your little "victories" in content disputes with me being wrong about anything. It's a joke that you believe just because a couple of third-party opinions mirror your own, that your opinions are somehow proven to be more "correct" than mine. Oh, and I stopped answering your "questions" in Talk, because you aren't some higher authority on any page I choose to edit, and I don't have to answer to you. When you finally figure out that relevancy is subjective, you'll start to have a clue. I could just as easily ask you to prove how the material you have such an issue with is irrelevant to the rivalry, but I realize that's a stupid road to go down. The material is notable to the subject of the article, it is sourced, and that is the standard. If anything, the history section of the rivalry could actually be expanded, to include the controversy that surrounded USC's exit from the ACC, and Clemson's cowardly 11th hour refusal to honor a gentleman's agreement to leave with us if the Tobacco Road schools continued their unfair practices meant to maintain their then dominant position in the conference. But that information might be viewed as potentially placing Clemson in a slightly negative light to some, so I know you'd fight tooth and nail to keep it out. You're not fooling anyone here, Les. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct G&B, that's a good point. "If anything, the history section of the rivalry could actually be expanded, to include the controversy that surrounded USC's exit from the ACC, and Clemson's cowardly 11th hour refusal to honor a gentleman's agreement to leave ...," is very pertinent/relevant to the rivalry. I've got several sources with quotes from both Frank McGuire and Paul Dietzel about what transpired at the famous meeting in the RTP and what went down with Clemson's people at that meeting. Both McGuire and Dietzel were fairly open and honest about their disappointment in Clemson to keep their word but most telling were some of Sol Blatt's comments on the affair. He really called into question the fiber of Clemson's leadership's character. Scrooster (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that would be a great addition to the article as it shows the intensity of the rivalry and the continued hostilities between the two schools.


 * I guess you didn't expect that response. BTW, fair warning: the next time either of you lashes out with hostilities and personal attacks that violate WP:CIV, I'm requesting a permanent ban from the article. But I am interested in civil debate for furthering the cause of the article.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Les, make that the final threat you ever place on my talk page - do you understand me? No one has tried to be more civil with you than G&B and I. Now, this discussion has come to an end between you and me. I've made it clear, you do whatever you feel necessary and we'll go from there. Period, that's the end of this discussion. We're moving-on to more productive things from this point forward. Scrooster (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After some thought, there's got to be a better way to approach this. I'm honestly not trying to get the history portion of the article deleted. I'm only requesting a trimming down of completely irrelevant portions (which would fit fine on the respective teams' pages). I think the extended history of the article works. We need to stop getting in pissing contests on the Internet. If you're coming in town for the Clemson game, I'd like to invite you to swing by the tailgate for a beer and you'll see we can see eye-to-eye. Same with G&B if he's up for it. Take care.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Dick's Sporting Goods, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Left you a message on your talk page regarding conflicting guidelines. If one is removed, then the one that has existed there for some time above it should be removed as well. Wait, good, I see you removed the Golf Galaxy link - okay, good, now we're on the same page.  It had to be one or the other - so now we are in agreement.  Appreciated. Scrooster (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Southeastern Conference
Hey, SC. A couple of quick points --


 * First, "comprised of" is a horrible expression in the English language, and should be avoided whenever possible. Please see the Wikipedia article, or Strunk and White's Elements of Style, or the Chicago Manual of Style, or, really, any American or British style guide, for guidance on point.


 * Second, speaking as a three-time graduate of an SEC founding member institution, there is no reason to single out the University of Missouri as being somehow different from the other 13 SEC member universities. Arkansas and Texas are usually considered to be "southwestern," not "southeastern" states, and in many classifications by the federal government (and other quasi-official agencies) Louisiana is often grouped as a "southwestern" or "south central" state, with Mississippi sometimes likewise being characterized as "south central."  Referring to Kentucky as a "southeastern" state is also a bit of a geographical misnomer, too.

Bottom line: let's not single out Missouri as some sort of odd ball in the SEC; it's not. Culturally, Missouri is every bit as Southern as Kentucky, and more so than Florida south of Orlando. Frankly, I can clearly remember when the universities of Arkansas and South Carolina were talked about as some sort of interloping outsiders, too. (Oh! A former ACC school?  What next?)  And that was not that long ago. Let's try to be a little more welcoming. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Missouri is not located in the southern or southeastern United States. Therefore it is notable that they are considered "Midwestern."  That is simply geographical fact.  We're not picking on them.  And if you seriously want to reference back to South Carolina and Arkansas joining the conference 24 years ago ... I mean seriously? There were no geographical issues that I remember.  South Carolina was an original member of the Southern Conference along with the rest of the SEC.  That has no bearing whatsoever on this debate friend.


 * "Comprised of," okay ... I've been following that debate, started by Giraffedata, and read the articles the debate has inspired including the one written just a couple of months ago on NPR. Yet it remains a better alternative than "has" fourteen member institutions, would you not agree?  The SEC goes to great lengths to ensure that no program or member institution feels "owned." So what do you propose that we substitute in lieu of "is comprised of" or "has?"  Help me out, I am wide open to any other options you might suggest, provided it is not "has" fourteen member institutions.  PS: Thank you for starting this discussion.  It is much appreciated.  Scrooster (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How about "consists of" dirtLawyer1? Oh, and btw, if it took you three tries you were doing something wrong. ;) Scrooster (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I voted and thanks. Scrooster (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Well, they're at it again… Over at Clemson Tigers football (an article I seriously try not to meddle with anymore), someone is trying their very best to whitewash the Danny Ford section of well-sourced, relevant material that was merged into the article by consensus way back in 2008. Strange how you don't see this sort of juvenile behavior on Gamecock articles, but that's a tale for another day. I don't know how much Wiki you still concern yourself with, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention to see if you have anything to add to the discussion (such as it is). GarnetAndBlack (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for just now getting to this, the wife and I returned from Honolulu yesterday and I was tech free the entire time there since late January. Looks like there has been a lot of contentious editing going-on over at the page this month.  Just pursuing the article itself there appears to remain quite a bit about the cheating under Ford.  What is it that we should contend - I missed so many of the edits while we were away, I may be overlooking something? Scrooster (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the article has been restored to the form agreed on by a consensus reached in 2008. As you might be able to tell from the edit history, there is one editor who is pushing for a reduction of the material merged into the article about the two probations Clemson suffered under Ford's regime. Just more of the usual game-playing from Clemson fans who think Wikipedia should read like the Tigers' football media guide. Things seem to have quieted down for now, but this is something to keep an eye on. Hope you and the missus had a great vacation in Hawaii! Sounds like heaven. Opening day this Friday, and weather is supposed to be nice, hopefully this season will see the Yardcocks back to form! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cws logo new ncaa2016.png
Thanks for uploading File:Cws logo new ncaa2016.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Carolina CWS appearances
Hi Scrooster, it's been a while - I hope all is well. I've been working, in my copious spare time and along with several other things, on creating pages for various College World Series seasons. You can probably see that I've done several of my preferred programs, while also trying to create them for CWS runners-up. I wondered if you'd be interested in creating season pages for Carolina's CWS appearances - particularly the 3 remaining seasons when they finished as runners-up? 2012 already has a page. Would you have interest or time to work on this? I'm also dropping a note on GarnetAndBlack's page, as I know he's an avid Gamecock baseball fan. Billcasey905 (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2021
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Snooganssnoogans. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)