User talk:GarnetAndBlack

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, GarnetAndBlack, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! NW (Talk) 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content

It seems like you have a lot invested in South Carolina athletics articles. I can appreciate your zeal, but please don't allow your personal fandom break basic Wikipedia policies. Are you familiar with WP:NFC, our guidelines on non-free image use? I'd be glad to discuss the topics in further depth, because your resistance to the change makes me think you may be ignorant of the policy behind it. So please discuss this with me if you have any outstanding concerns before restoring content which is in clear violation of policy. Keep in mind, restoring content against policy is a form of disruptive editing, and you could be blocked for that. I don't want to see that. I think you could even help contribute to our cleanup efforts, and in fact I'd like to encourage that! Again contact me if you have any questions about our policies, or want to discuss this further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to pick your brain for a bit, since you seem to know a lot about USC. It seems like you aren't a big fan of the interlocking letters logo. Would you care to look at this and make suggestions for other text-only logos that you feel are more suitable? I'd be glad to make specific replacements on a case by case basis (such as what I did for the Baseball logo), or replace the entire interlocking logo with something else of your choosing. Are any of the text only logos on that sheets old enough to represent the 1980 team? And what text logo do you feel is best, assuming you don't like the interlocking letters logo that I uploaded. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball logo looks great, in fact, I'll be using it when I write an article detailing the 2010 national championship season. Unfortunately, none of the text-only logos pictured in the PDF you linked to were in use in 1980. There was a script "Carolina" in use by the head football coach (on his trademark black hat) from 1983-1988, but the Block C was the dominant identifier before that. Would a representation of the helmet in use during the 1980 season be acceptable? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, I'd probably need to see a sample image to say for sure. You mention a block "C", what if I removed the rooster from in front of the C, and just used that? -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to you in July, but it seems like we didn't move forward. Consequently, I have removed the USCGamecocks.png logo from 18 articles. If you don't like the logo I added, feel free to use another one, as long as it is licensed freely. The image of the gamecock cannot be used in these contexts. My offer still stands from above. I'd be more than happy to upload a new logo from the LogoSheet.pdf I linked to above, if you think that any of those are superior to the one I used. Regardless, we have dozens of possible free replacement options, so there is no reason to use a non-free image in these articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2006 SEC Football Standings

G&B, I just took the time to confirm USC's 2006 football standings, as shown in the Steve Spurrier article. The Cocks were 5th, not 4th, in the SEC East. Please see page 136 of the 2009 SEC Football Media Guide for authoritative reference. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.41.168.112

I don't think it is necessary to antagonize the aforementioned IP. I understand why you'd be frustrated with them, but it was an obviously new editor editing in good faith. The IP in question's behavior is also understandable when reverted and templated. The whole situation would have been diffused if you had just moved the content to it's own section. Anyways, I get frustrated by new users on occasion too so no worries. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to offer some advice about Wiki policy to a new editor, and it's frustrating when that advice is ignored and instead met with even more violation of other policies. Thanks for stepping in. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-biased related content

I am abit confused. It is obvious that you are a supporter of the University of South Carolina athletic program so I fail to see why allowing two traditional sports logos of the same size to be used side by side should cause a problem. Since the logos are of not in violation of non-free overuse (the ones in the "blood drive" section were removed), their size and placement should not be an issue. "Point of view" should also not be an issue if the point of view is rotated from the title of the article ("Clemson-Carolina / Carolina-Clemson") throughout the article. 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1975 (talk • contribs)

I'll assume that you are the same individual who has been making anonymous POV edits for the better part of two days with multiple IPs and reverting without discussion in the article in question, and decided to stop reverting and register only after being warned for 3RR violation/edit warring. You should be aware that having a username will not help you get around that policy. The situation with the logos is in keeping with Wikipedia policy on the use of non-free logos when free versions are available, you're not going to have much luck swimming against the tide on that issue. I also noticed in another one of your recent edits that you claim to have no affilation to Clemson University. If this is indeed the case, why are you so interested in making essentially meaningless edits that place that school's name/logo first in numerous places in this article? The title is Carolina-Clemson Rivalry, therefore it makes sense to maintain consistency throughout the article. Also, do not remove factual information from the Clemson Tigers football article, as you did in the case of details surrounding recruting violations and probation under the coaching tenure of Danny Ford. All these edits taken together make it difficult to believe that you are simply an unbiased editor, with no Clemson ties whatsoever. Honesty goes a long way when trying to build a reputation as an editor here. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GarnetAndBlack for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the allegation is absurd, and I welcome CheckUser to clear my name. Secondly, it's pretty difficult to respond to the allegation when the admin who filed the report subsequently blocks me for edit warring. Doesn't seem kosher to me. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it: The supposed alternate account was already shown to be a sock of a very different user, so the case resolved itself.
Amalthea 08:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brawl article content dispute

GarnetAndBlack, please see my comment on the Clemson-USC Brawl discussion page, and let me know what you think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Horn

Sorry, I just screwed up. The coaching record was correct. I must have misread something. Zagalejo^^^ 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Univ. South Carolina logos

I managed to locate http://busfinance.admin.sc.edu/trademark/pdf/logos_fightsong/SouthCarolinaLogoSheet.pdf on my own (not knowing about a text logo being up already). I made a larger SVG version of the text logos and I can have more SVG logos made of the various teams (such as the baseball logo). It also has SVG versions of the official school seal and the school logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 baseball

Hey i saw where you made the 2010 SC baseball team page i was just wonderin if you had any intrest in making one for this year i keep up the 2011 Alabama Crimson Tide baseball team and would like to get some more sec 2011 team pages. Zwilson14 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to start one for USC's 2011 season. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo added to Commons

The Clemson logo has been removed from the Commons by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It helps I admin here and there :) I also hope you don't have hard feelings still over the Florida image stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Due to your recent attention to the article on USC's steroid scandal and its associated Talk page, you inspired me to write a Wikipedia article for Clemson University's steroid scandal of a few years prior. Hope you are as dedicated to improving this new article as you are the one about South Carolina. Cheers! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, so you basically spent the nice weekend inside at the computer working for me then! Kinda weird, but whatever "Urinates on Street Corners" for ya! Cheers! --PeeCocks (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those couple of hours late last night really killed my weekend. But thanks for your concern! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USC logos again

I am looking at the new sheet I have from the University of South Carolina for logos. I do understand that the Block C logo with the Gamecock is the main logo of the university and is used for football and other logos. If you look at the sheet at http://busfinance.admin.sc.edu/trademark/pdf/logos_fightsong/SouthCarolinaLogoSheet.pdf there are primary spirit marks that can use the Block C logo, the solo Gamecock and just the text by themselves. What I am thinking is there is still a place the Block C logo can be used, but when it comes to a season article or on a specific team, we can use the text only spirit mark so NFCC rules can be complied with. I would like to hear your thoughts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, File:South Carolina Gamecocks Block C logo.svg is now available to use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE CURSE LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OVERRATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy ANOTHER mediocre season at The USC. "Kneed" a running back? BWAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!!!!!!! --CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 02:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love how Clemson fans think so highly of Carolina's football program after two straight ass whippings, that a road loss to a favored team ranked two spots higher in the BCS Top Ten qualifies as a "choke", and a 7-2 record is "mediocre". Thanks for the compliment, Tater. Makes me wonder what losing to an unranked team when you are undefeated and favored counts as? Guess we'd have to ask Dabo about that. LMFAO

Oh, and thanks for showing the world how low your redneck fanbase is by making light of a teenage kid's injury. You stay classy, Clemson. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HEHHEHHEHE!!! Another ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC ViperNerd RANT!!! Just let that hate eat you up inside!!! Spend another couple years of your life trolling Wikipedia, getting fatter than you already are!!! You are working for ME now, BITCH! --CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 19:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]