User talk:Strikehold/Archive 2

Per your comments at the, I believe it is quite simple (at least in most cases) to find and distinguish such logos if you set the bar in a clear place. Case in point: all of these are valid free images that can be appropriately used across Wikipedia without the same restrictions as copyrights or other trademarks with the ability to be copyrighted. — BQZip01 — talk 06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is arbitrary and open to interpretation. I don't want to open the door to pointless legal debates, when, as written, the fair use rules clearly allow use of non-free images.
 * Regarding your list that you assert is free, how are you so certain that none of those are open to copyright? Are you certain that the AFA and Army logos were made by servicemembers and not professional artists? Akron isn't a simple typeface. Alabama is a complex logo involving more than text. Arizona, Arizona State, Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, Kansas, NC State, Temple, USC, Virginia Tech, West Virginia: None of these are simply text or typefaces. It is arguable that they are artistic renderings. Miami is a stylized, unique rendering of a Latin letter.
 * All of those are trademarked, but who says that they are not either copyrighted or open to copyright?
 * Strikehold (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Primarily, our guideline WP:TRADEMARK which permits it and the accompanying tag which confirms the definition: . If you have a legal question, I think this might be a good read. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read User:Elcobbola/Copyright for additional information... — BQZip01 —  talk 08:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already read both of those. You didn't address my concerns. How do you know, say, the Alabama logo does not pass the threshold for originality, or that the University of Alabama will not assert a copyright over the logo? It boils down to this: Unless a copyright claim over a specific trademark has been struck down in court, it will always be open to interpretation whether it meets the threshold or not. I think it is far easier to just err on the side of caution, treat them all as copyrighted (unless proven otherwise), and use them under fair use. This is in accordance with the policies. Strikehold (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Oyster Bowl
Well, I guess |66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50 this verifies the 1951 game. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure does. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

James Franklin
Looks like an article creation is in order! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think it's a good move. He's a great speaker and judging from this class and others he recruited his first time around, I think he can bring a lot of quality players in. His playcalling needs some work (shovel pass to Cory Jackson on 3rd down @ UVA comes to mind), but hopefully he's learning.  I've seen his speak at Maryland Gridiron Network functions, and he certainly makes a strong, energetic impression. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think he's a good choice, and it wasn't completely an unexpected move. What had me worried when I first read that was I thought you were implying he had taken a head coaching job somewhere else. Strikehold (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah if he's not a Terp then I don't care about his article!--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

oops
I'm afraid I owe you an apology. I confused you with User:Sternlight who appears to be a sockpuppet and who has certainly acted in bad faith recently. That is why I had "no desire to talk to you," but since that isn't you, sorry. I guess I got turned around the wrong way, this is one of the more insane AfDs I've ever participated in. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, oh. No hard feelings on this end. Strikehold (talk) 20:46, 10 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) 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1954 Orange Bowl
GA passed. Congratulations! Spevw (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Humanitarian Bowl
Congratulations! JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks and same to you on the 2008 ACC CG. Also, thanks for the help and your comments. Strikehold (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. For me, I'm not happy if I don't have a FAC in the queue. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Glad to see more CFB content flooding into the FAs :-) --Bobak (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Crab Bowl
Thank you! Thank you! THANK YOU! I am a Terp, live near Annapolis, and have way too many Naval Academy friends. I was at the "last" Crab Bowl and loved every minute of it ... even without the antics of the earlier games. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (Any chance you might do something on Maryland lacrosse?)

Proposed deletion of Adrian Cannon
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Adrian Cannon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Not a starter, no evidence of notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New York University Violets move
Hello. You recently moved New York University Violets to NYU Violets because it is supposedly a more common name. Despite this potentially being the case, WikiProject Universities' Article Guidelines state: "Never use an acronym in the name of an institution's related articles where one is not used in the name of the institution." This is consistent with general naming conventions, which state that acronyms should be avoided unless the article is almost exclusively known by that name (which is not the case with NYU Violets). This is also consistent with the majority of major university sports articles, rarely any of which use acronyms in their name. Because of these reasons I'm requesting that you move the article back to its original name. Let me know your thoughts.— Noetic  Sage  19:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought this move would be totally uncontroversial. Here is my rationale: NYU Violets is far more common than "New York University Violets" in usage. One metric, comparing Google searches, finds "NYU Violets" with 25,900 hits versus "New York University Violets" with 1,430 hits. According to that measurement, NYU is 18 times more prevalent in usage. Additionally, the official school website is "GoNYUAthletics.com", and calls it the "Home of NYU Athletics".


 * I disagree that the program is not almost exclusively known as the "NYU Violets". The search engine test show this for one. The New York Times, the New York Post , the New York Daily News , and ESPN all use "NYU". There are virtually no instances in a sports context where one hears a team referred to as the "X University Ys"—the university short form, whatever that may be, is almost universally used. Not too long ago "Brigham Young University Cougars football" was moved to "BYU Cougars football" through an uncontroversial Requested move that met with no dissent. BYU is the form that is in use almost exclusively, far more common than "Brigham Young Cougars", and vastly more common than "Brigham Young University Cougars".


 * Other articles that match this nomenclature convention are: BYU Cougars, USC Trojans, UC Santa Barbara Gauchos, UC San Diego Tritons, UTEP Miners, ULM Warhawks, UNO Mavericks, UMBC Retrievers, UNLV Rebels, UMass Minutemen, UC Davis Aggies, NC State Wolfpack, UCLA Bruins, UTSA Roadrunners, TCU Horned Frogs, SMU Mustangs, UCF Knights, UAB Blazers, Cal Poly Pomona Broncos, UW-Milwaukee Panthers, UIC Flames, IPFW Mastodons, IUPUI Jaguars, UMKC Kangaroos, UC Irvine Anteaters, FIU Golden Panthers, LSU Tigers, UNC Pembroke Braves, UW-Green Bay Phoenix, UBC Thunderbirds, RMC Paladins, UQAM Citadins, UNB Varsity Reds, UPEI Panthers, CBU Capers, UNAM Pumas, UT Cougars, UEA Pirates, ARU Phantoms... In short, it isn't about what the institution is known, but rather what the sports team is known most commonly as.


 * You cite WP:UNIGUIDE, but that is a guideline that you yourself have written. Don't get me wrong, I assume good faith, but I don't think that in itself is a good argument to disuse the far more common name. It says "Never use an acronym in the name of an institution's related articles where one is not used in the name of the institution..." then proceeds to cite Michigan State as the example. The real reason Michigan State Spartans is the name of that article is because the conventional short form of "Michigan State University" is "Michigan State". "Michigan State", not "MSU", is the commonly accepted short form that is used, for instance, in the media and sports fields. As a sidenote, on your own user page you refer to it several times, exclusively, as the "NYU Violets". That would seem to me to lend credence that this is the widely accepted common use. Strikehold (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thorough response. I will respond below in number format based on your paragraphs:
 * 1) I agree that "NYU Violets" is more common in search engines, but I don't agree that it is almost exclusively known as NYU Violets. If you replicate the search using a more relevant metric, Google News, you will see that it results in 93 hits for the full name and 136 hits for the abbreviation. While it is certainly more commonly referred to as NYU Violets, it's hardly to the point that it's exclusively known as NYU violets.


 * 2) I am not here to necessarily argue that in the case of BYU it was the wrong decision, but I do want to point out that other crap exists. I don't think that's a strong enough argument on its own to say that NYU should also be abbreviated.


 * 3) You definitely pointed out many more articles than I thought existed with abbreviations, but again there are a lot of articles that need to be corrected. Again, I'm not arguing for all articles at this point, but just NYU Violets.


 * 4) I have authored parts of WP:UNIGUIDE, yes, but this is not a conflict of interest because my authorship was not the sole authorship and it was based on consensus after 7 months of discussion and feedback from multiple users. You also miss the point that I cite general Wikipedia naming conventions, which also suggest that acronyms should be avoided unless it is almost exclusively known only by the name including the acronym and it is widely used as such. Additionally, the WikiProject College football Naming Conventions echo WikiProject Universities and state that "School names should be the short preferred version, and not acronyms". It goes so far as to specifically say that some articles you mentioned above should be renamed.


 * Additionally, your last paragraph borders on a personal attack. Obviously you were not trying to attack me, but there was no reason to look into the edit history of the WP:UNI guidelines and my user page to make your argument. This has nothing to do with me but with the guidelines that Wikipedia has set. Because I helped write WP:UNIGUIDE based directly on WP:NAMING has nothing to do with the fact that it is a current guideline. Also, my user page uses "NYU Violets" because when I split the page from the main NYU page that is what I named it. This was before WP:UNIGUIDE existed, which shows the fact that there is no conflict of interest.— Noetic  Sage  05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat taken aback that you assert my response "bordered on a personal attack". I made it clear it was not my intention to assume anything other than good faith on your part. If you concede that I "obviously [did not intend] to attack" you, then why even bring it up? I did not go combing through your contributions to look for something to 'use against you'. Please do not tell me there is no reason to cite the facts that I did, and please do not presume to dictate to me what I have a reason to look at. The facts cited have nothing to do with you personally, and were clearly not an ad hominem attack. I read WP:UNIGUIDE and looked at the edit history to see how current and how widespread its consensus. The fact is that you had the very latest edit on it. I then looked closer at it and saw that you were a major contributor, and indeed its original author. The fact that you were the one who authored and determined that consensus had been reached on the WP:UNIGUIDE guideline is relevant. Lastly, I simply went to your user page to respond to your comment on my own page and saw that you yourself referred to it as NYU Violets. How is any of that anything but highly relevant to this discussion?


 * 1) Looking at the dates on those uses of "New York University Violets" I see, in order of appearance: 1931, 1948, 1939, 1950, 1951, 1944, 1989, 1937, 1941, 1945, 1941, 1968, 1931, 1935... The default Google search is not completely strict, so uses such as "New York University's Violets" get counted as well. This is the case in the very first three hits, and five of the first twelve. Using the advanced search for the exact phrase, from 1999 to 2009, NYU Violets is three times as prevalent. From 1989 to 2009, it NYU Violets is more than three times as prevalent.


 * 2/3) "Other crap exists"? So what? Mine was not an "other stuff exists" argument. The example I gave is clearly relevant in this debate, where you pointed out a guideline that says never use acronyms in university-related articles. Not only did "BYU Cougars" find localized consensus, but it was moved by an administrator. Aside from that, I gave about 40 other examples of college athletics articles where the most common short form is used, and in those cases happen to be an acronym. This demonstrates that there is consensus on usage over a very large range of editors. And those are just teams that use acronyms, there are literally hundreds of college team articles that do not use "University" in their title. This exhaustive list (of American college teams alone) refers to the team in question as the "NYU Violets", and you can see there that virtually no college teams use "University" in their commonly accepted short form... And with good reason; the word adds five completely unnecessary syllables. You may just be arguing for NYU Violets, but the fact that there is this overwhelming consensus in favor of acronyms where it is common usage dictates otherwise. There should be standardization across the board, and use of "University" in the title of the article would violate that.


 * 4) I'm not arguing that WP:UNIGUIDE didn't reach consensus, but what was the exposure? How many regular contributors to the Universities project are also regular contributors to the college basketball and football projects? I don't recognize a single name on the WP:UNI participants list as a regular contributor to either, but I'm sure a few are, though I do not believe too many. The general consensus in the CFB and CBB projects has been that the common short form, and the one that is used in the media, is the one to be utilized.


 * 4) (cont'd) The College Football guideline you cite is completely defunct. The last edit to it was well over a year ago. Sadly, the CFB project pages are a mess of outdated information. The fact that USC Trojans has been adopted proves this—in fact, USC Trojans has never been called anything else since it was moved from "USC Athletics" in 2006. The USC football article was never called "Southern California Trojans football", it was moved from "University of Southern California Trojans football" because "University" is virtually never used. Here is the discussion resulting in consensus to that effect: Talk:USC Trojans football.


 * 4) (cont'd) The fact that USC Trojans and LSU Tigers exist shows that there is consensus through common use. Both of those are major college athletics programs, and have won a combined four national football championships the last five years. These are the names used with the consensus of a large group of very active editors in the WikiProject College Football, not to mention the WikiProject College Basketball.


 * Strikehold (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cornell Big Red football
Shubinator (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

FSU Seminoles athletic symbol
Thank you for adding the FUR and the symbols back to the articles! Sirberus (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Strikehold (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dartmouth Big Green football
--Dravecky (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Cottle
Shubinator (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse
Hey I noticed you've been writing lacrosse articles recently and wanted to know if you would consider joining WikiProject Lacrosse. We only have a small group of members and could really use your help. Thanks, Y ar na lg o  talk to me 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I went ahead and added my name. Can't say I'll be all that active with lacrosse stuff, but I'll probably work on Maryland-related college lacrosse here and there. Strikehold (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:OrangeBowlLogo1951-1988.gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:OrangeBowlLogo1951-1988.gif. 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GatorBowlLogo1978-1985.gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:GatorBowlLogo1978-1985.gif. 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Luellen
Source for his release it's in the October 14th section.-- Giants27 T/  C  21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:UNCP Braves logo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:UNCP Braves logo.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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Centre helmet.gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Centre helmet.gif. 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ritchie Coliseum

 * Gah, my apologies for putting "| fullname = An outside view of the coliseum" in that article. I assumed that was a caption field. Its really late here... My bad. Killiondude (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem, thanks for finding the image. Strikehold (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles A. May
congrats on the GA, that was some fast work. (i'm still hoping to see a better image somewhere, photo or carte de visit) pohick (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Darrius Heyward-Bey
Excuse me, but why did you revert my edit.--Yankees10 00:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, it removes information about where he was projected by several reliable sources. Second, your edit changed neutral information to add POV -- just because he was projected as a lower draft choice does not mean most analysts regarded him as an inferior receiver to Crabtree and Maclin. Strikehold (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is you are putting prior to the Draft, when this is not prior to the draft, this is prior to the whole college football season and therefore not a good statement. If you want to put in sources on where he was expected to go why not use newer resources and non-mock drafts instead of those old sources that dont have the correct draft order or players that were even considred for this years draft.--Yankees10 01:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And dont say I dont understand a encyclopedia, please I've been here for almost three years.--Yankees10 01:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Scout.com and Sports Illustrated articles aren't mock drafts, although you are correct insofar as them being early predictions. It is exceedingly poor form, though, to ask your buddies to come to your assistance, as you Chrisjnelson and Giants27 often seem to do. Strikehold (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you are wrong about everything, including me going to Chrisjnelson to ask for "assisstance", I wanted his opinion on the situation, not to help me revert. Hey im not going to lie the post I left sounded like I wanted him to help me undo your edits, but I really wanted to discuss before anyone did anymore reverting. And by the way we go to each other because we happen to know a lot about the game of football (not saying you or anyone else no any less) and probably make the most football related edits here--Yankees10 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Undrafted free agents
No matter the differing opinions in the various AfDs, there is a consensus belief that undrafted free agents are not notable until they actual play in a regular season game and therefore pass WP:ATHLETE. Trivial mention in articles is not substantial to achieve notability (for example: "Redskins agree to terms with 13 undrafted free agents").  Grsz 11  23:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you referring to? Strikehold (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't looked up any of them for coverage, but I mean someone like Scott Burley, Edwin Williams, or Moise Fokou.  Grsz 11  23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For one, Fokou was drafted not an UFA, and all have had coverage in the Washington Post, Washington Times, and/or Baltimore Sun (beyond "signed by Redskins"). All three also had write-ups in the Sporting News draft issue. In addition to meeting WP:BIO, having played (as starters) at Division I FBS, the highest amateur level for American football, does meet WP:ATHLETE. Strikehold (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then those articles should be referenced. But and  fall into the trivial category.  Grsz  11  23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) How is that trivia? They are reliable sources that confirm precisely what the text says. It is also referenced in each of those cases that they played as starters at Maryland, a BCS conference FBS school. I usually add external links to feature articles, and I see there is at least one for each of the ones you mentioned. Strikehold (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt there are articles out there, but the ones I link above are trivial mention. Sure, they support what the text says which is needed, but they can't be used to prove the subject's notability, as you need articles actually about the person to do that.  Grsz 11  23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then take your pick, and improve the articles as you see fit. I should let you know that Maryland just graduated 30 seniors, so there are a disproportionate number of former Terps getting ready to enter the next level. Although you can't really ensure others know WP:ATHLETE is met by Division I FBS, I do realize there are different interpretations, and generally ensure WP:BIO-worthy coverage before creating articles... Strikehold (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins – Maryland rivalry
>>> Let me know if you want me to change & source these. Thanks. --10stone5 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC) <<<
 * Under the "Early years" section, this statement -- In 1928, Maryland had a perfect 10–0 record until Johns Hopkins defeated the Terps in the season finale by a score of 6 to 3. -- is not correct. According to Maryland's 2009 lacrosse media guide, the Terps were 9 and 0 in 1928 before being defeated by Hopkins. So one of these source - [9][10] - is incorrect.
 * Under the "Maryland dominance" section, this statement -- In 1960, Navy became the first team other than Hopkins to defeat Maryland since 1950. -- is not correct. According to Maryland's 2009 lacrosse media guide, the Terps lost 18 games in the ten years between 1950 & 1960, which means they lost to several teams besides Hopkins. So this source - [8] - is incorrect.
 * 1] You are assuming that the 2009 media guide is 100% correct. The source for that statement is the 1928 yearbook. It was released before the end of the season, but here's what it records as the season's results: L'Hirondelle 4-0, Randolph-Macon 10-1, Harvard 12-2, Georgia Tech 16-2, Virginia 17-1, Colgate 7-4, St. John's at Annapolis 7-2, Navy 3-2, Princeton 8-3, with Lehigh and Johns Hopkins remaining to play. The 1929 yearbook says, talking about the 1928 season, "But the unexpected happened and till the last game with Johns Hopkins, an undefeated reputation was maintained."
 * Except that L'Hirondelle was/is a Lacrosse Club, and by 1923, the Terps had officially become a member of the Southern Division of the ILL. The ILL did not include lacrosse clubs, so it is unlikely that the early season game against L'Hirondelle would have been officially sanctioned. I personally think its a bit of a stretch to include this game, however this, of course, is a debatable point as many members of the ILL or USILL or USILA played and counted club team games. Also the last thing I assume is that team media guides are 100% correct, as I have some experience with converting media guide information as well as yearbook data into a published book form (for a DI lacrosse team history).--10stone5 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope I didn't sound condescending, because that wasn't my intent. I did think you were saying that these things were incorrect because they differed from the media guide, and wanted to be sure you weren't relying on it exclusively (I've been shown errors in the 2009 guide). You are of course correct on all points. (These days L'Hirondelle in Baltimore is a fairly exclusive country club, not sure if they still have lacrosse teams). I was working on the assumption that, at that time, they would still have considered club teams as part of their regular schedule. The case certainly may have been it was just a preseason exhibition game, I don't know for sure either way. I'm inclined to agree with you, though, that the media guide is probably the best source to go with since it likely reflects what the school counts toward their official record. Strikehold (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2] The ACC source says: " Maryland's dominance over the college lacrosse world during the 1950s was so thorough that from the final game in 1954 through the first five games of the 1960 season the Terps compiled a 54-3 record - 2-3 against Johns Hopkins and 52-0 against all other schools. The Blue Jays' win in 1957 (noted above) gave teams hope, but it was still not until April 30, 1960 that another team would top the Terps (Navy, 15-14)." I see that I originally misread the dates, as 1950 to `1964. Then I corrected 1964 to 1960, but did not adjust 1950 to 1954. The 2009 media guide agrees with this. I corrected the article on this point. Strikehold (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, not to nitpick, but some of the changes you've made are unsourced, as it is not supported by the current cited references. For example, "That [1973] Terrapin's team, led by Hall of Fame midfielder Frank Urso and considered one of the top college lacrosse teams of all time, averaged almost 18 goals a game." Please ensure that you include proper sourcing with newly added information. I tagged the statements that were not supported by the old references; if you could add a citation for those it would be appreciated. Strikehold (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These items are easy enough to source. --10stone5 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Again, it's not to nitpick, but because I was planning to put it through GA review. Strikehold (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ArmyNavyLax2009.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ArmyNavyLax2009.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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.  Yarnalgo  talk to me 04:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lance Stephenson
re: edit in Lance Stephenson, the issue wasn't whether the nickname was noteworthy, but whether it was lead paragraph/opening sentence-worthy. We're not talking about a nickname like "Shaq" or "Ronaldo" or even "Big Baby" that substitutes for the real name on first mention (a sobriquet, if you will). I realize that he's got the bornready.tv thing going, but it seems like something that should be mentioned further down. "Born Ready" isn't something that defines him, the way his occupation or birth date would. Thoughts? --Mosmof (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, and that's why I separated it from his birth name. Not sure why you didn't move it to where you thought appropriate, rather than remove it and the source altogether, though. It was for that reason that I assumed you thought it was non-notable. I think the article is currently short enough that it doesn't really have a definable lead, so I think it's okay where it is now. I'd disagree, to some extent, about the stature of his nickname and think it more a factor of him being relatively unknown outside of people who follow recruiting. Of those who do, I would venture almost all know the nickname. Strikehold (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some work expanding the article - I think the recruiting section will need a rewrite eventually, and the other sections may need fleshing out, but I've included a paragraph about the origin of the nickname. --Mosmof (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw on my watchlist and was about to message you to say nicely done. I agree that the recruiting part will need paring down once it's all settled. Even when "done" though, it should be substantial, as the recruiting process has been a minor debacle with a lot of wild speculation, his ongoing procrastinations, and a wide level of publicity for a recruit. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of pundits (like Zagoria) who are basically making unsourced or poorly sourced ("anonymous" and/or "insider" sources) comments about his recruitment. Strikehold (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Navy titles
I'm a little confused by the championships. According to their media guide, Navy only claims 17 nat'l championships themselves: 1928, 1929, 1938, 1943, 1945, 1946, 1949, 1954, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1970. Since the other seven (for 23 total) come from 1914 to 1925, are these semi-official or retroactive championships? You're a lot more knowledgeable on lacrosse history than myself, so maybe you can shed some light on the situation for the early championship awarding procedure? Strikehold (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added ILA, USILL titles. I'm not totally convincec ILA & the like titles were on the level or even consolidated since there were, evidently, some diverse lacrosse orgs pre-1920s. I'm ok if you don't want to include. thanks. --10stone5 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 — talk 06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Marko Mitchell
I tend to agree with you, but check out every other football players page. You'll find I am just going with the crowd. If you want to make a change that would affect many other articles, I think you should talk about it here. Jwalte04 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Locobot edit
The bot moved the categories outside the  tags because a normal article shouldn't have these tags, except some exceptions (Anime lists, etc), so I'm wondering, why does the article have those tags at all? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 12:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job!
on creating the Brett Swenson article. I was going to do it eventually, but you beat me to it. RF23 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Maryland Terrapins under Jim Tatum
Holy hell ... and I thought my college football articles took a lot of time to create. I've put the article on hold with a list of changes on the talk page. Don't thank me for reviewing it before you see the list. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I've passed the article. It's not perfect, but it's readable, doesn't appear to lack any significant information, and can convey the idea of your subject clearly. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any general recommendations for improvement? I was going through the diffs just now and looked at your copyedits for the first time. Some of your changes I didn't quite understand, so I thought I'd ask if you could clarify.


 * In my replies to your GA review, I didn't realize what you meant in your All-America/All-American comment. Now that I've seen your diff I understand you had already made the changes and were trying to explain that you prefer "All-America honors" vs. "All-American honors". I can see that "All-America honors" is an acceptable term (essentially using "America" as an adjectival noun), but to my ear, it sounds odd compared with "All-American honors", which uses a true adjective ("American" of course being both a noun and adjective). In other words, I think either is correct, but in my opinion, All-American honors would be better stylistically. Am I screwed up here?


 * Another change I wasn't quite sure on was: "Scarbath was also named..." to "Scarbath also was named..." Again, I thought that either of these is correct, although in my opinion the first one sounds more natural. Is there a grammatical or stylistic reason to prefer the second version?


 * Lastly, you said to use "No. 1" instead of "number-one". Again, I might be wrong here, but I thought that "No." is just an abbreviation and that either would be correct. If that is the case, it'd only be important to be consistent. Thinking about it though, it might properly be rendered "number one", instead... Like I said, MOSNUM didn't appear to be much help in this area. What do you think? Strikehold (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of these are due to my background as a copy editor in AP style. Forex, the "also was named" is an outgrowth of the split infinitive. I don't like seeing the main verb separated from the helping verb, unless there's a good reason for it.
 * The All-America/All-American separation is just how the Associated Press and most newspapers prefer it. I don't know why they made that decision, but that's how I've always seen it and how the rule is.
 * The No. 1 thing is again an AP rule. I'm frankly not sure on what WP style is on that, which is why I'm flexible on it. As long as it's clear and used consistently throughout the article, I'm not going to hammer you on it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I'm not big on prescriptivism myself, but can appreciate your perspective. Thanks for the reply. Strikehold (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the project tags...
When you tag an article for the project, it would be a huge time saver if you could put in a quick rating while you're in there. The vast majority of untagged articles are C-class or below, and so the rating should be noncontroversial. It's just so much faster to type in the rating while it's already being edited, than to scan Category:Unassessed college football articles, open each talk page for editing, scan the article, and save the class. I'd be grateful if you were able to throw those in as you tag stuff. DeFaultRyan 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1991 Wyoming Cowboys football team
Hi there. I know that you have made some significant contributions to college football articles and am requesting your assistance please. An article about the Wyoming Cowboys has become a candidate for speedy deletion. I am requesting your assistance to keep the 1991 Wyoming Cowboys football team. Have a great day. Maple Leaf (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It is sincerely appreciated. Maple Leaf (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Strikehold (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seemed to me that an article about a college football team would struggle to establish notability, let alone a team for a single season. But since you removed the speedy template I see that there are literally hundreds of these articles so clearly there is considerable precedent. I retreat, somewhat amazed and a little bit wiser. Out of interest, can you suggest some AfDs I could look at to see how the consensus was reached - none of the many articles I clicked through had been nominated. I42 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Had to do some digging, but here are some: Articles for deletion/2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams, Articles for deletion/2008 Oregon Ducks football team, Articles for deletion/2005 California Golden Bears football team, Articles for deletion/1906 Auburn Tigers football team, Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team, Articles for deletion/2005 Northern Iowa Panthers football team. Strikehold (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links (which in turn led to WikiProject College football/Notability and WikiProject College football, which also made interesting reading). Not sure I am still convinced the level of detail is supported or even allowed under the usual policy, but I am somewhat more certain this particular subject is one of the most thoroughly covered - and most useful to someone looking for information - of all the projects on Wikipedia. Thanks for enlightening me! I42 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft vandal
Wow, he created a mess. Obviously someone with too much time. Given how he came back without hesitation, I gave him a 2 week time out. If he continues, I see no problem hammering him with a longer block. Let me know if he comes back, I've put his talk page on my watchlist. If I'm not around, and its going willy-nilly, don't hesitate to use Administrator intervention against vandalism, but they sometimes don't respond immediately. I turned back a few articles to earlier this month, if I accidentally removed useful information, feel free to re-add. All the best, Bobak (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees
The above article is a very impressive piece of work. It could well serve as a model for other college football programs. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That's a big compliment coming from you; I always enjoy reading your All-American articles. I'm very interested in college football from before about 1960. I'm actually working on that list right now. I want to submit it as a Featured List candidate, and I'm almost done I think. Just have to finish a couple lines for the Hall of Fame section, write the text for the Awards section, and add a lead. Strikehold (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked it over again per your request. Other than striking an extra "and," I found nothing wrong (and a lot right) about it.  This really is a very nice piece of work that could serve as a model for other programs. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pre-FLC review
I'm more than happy to look at it. I'm getting ready to head out to a baseball game, but I should be able to look it over when I get back. From the quick look I had, it seems damn nice. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a chance, could you give me your thoughts on 2009 Orange Bowl? I'm getting that one ready for FAC, since I need only one more featured item for the Virginia Tech bowl games featured topic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for the help, and sure, I'll look at it tomorrow. Strikehold (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And your review is on the talk page. It's really a superb article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also posted some thoughts on the talk page, as requested.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments on the Orange Bowl article, too. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted the FAC for 2009 Orange Bowl now. Thank you again for your help in the pre-FAC review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

arb case - non-free image use?
In 2009–10 Maryland Terrapins women's basketball team you mentioned a currently open arbitration case - presumably involving when non-free images can be properly used. Can you point me to something to read or it is not open?-- SPhilbrick  T  12:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, (mediation, rather): Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. Strikehold (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- SPhilbrick  T  14:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN for 1950 Maryland Terrapins football team
I've reviewed the article and have failed it because at the moment it is not a coherent article, but rather is a collection of facts with little connection between the various sections. In my mind, it reads more like a list, than an article. I've laid out greater detail on the review page itself for the fail. If you disagree with my assessment, you're of course welcome to take it to WP:GAR for reassessment. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)